Welcome to Shell's First Quarter 2025 Results. Just over five weeks ago, at our Capital Markets Day in New York, Wael and I outlined the Shell investment case and our longer-term vision for the company. Our aim is to continue to deliver more value with less emissions, whilst rewarding our shareholders with consistency, delivering both competitive and resilient returns. In Q1, we continue to make good progress. As we look forward, we remain confident due to both our portfolio's strength and an organization which continues to deliver, guided by our principles of performance, discipline, and simplification. What we hope is now clear is that we do what we say. As we said at Capital Markets Day, we met our CMD 23 financial targets for 2025 almost a year early. As a result, we've set new financial targets whilst we are staying firm on our carbon targets and ambition. Repositioning the portfolio is a key step towards achieving our targets, and we have made meaningful progress in the first few months of 2025. We've completed our divestments of the Energy and Chemicals Park in Singapore and in onshore Nigeria. As we said we would, we are growing, but in a disciplined way. We completed the acquisition of Pavilion Energy, strengthening our Integrated Gas portfolio by further expanding our LNG trading and optimization capabilities. In Upstream, we signed an agreement to increase our working interest in Ursa in the Gulf of America. We already operate this asset, and we're pleased to be able to further consolidate our leading deep-water position. On projects, we took two key final investment decisions. The first is Gato do Mato in Brazil. This will be a Shell-operated asset in the Santos Basin, where we are the largest foreign producer. The second is phase II of the Northern Lights carbon capture and storage development in Norway. This will increase the project's capacity from 1.5 million tonnes to more than 5 million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2028. In operations, in the first few months of 2025, we've achieved significant milestones. I want to highlight just two of them. First, our Penguins FPSO in the U.K. North Sea is now online and supplying much-needed natural gas to the region. This modern FPSO is expected to extend the life of the field by up to 20 years. Second, Dover in the Gulf of America has started production. This is the second subsea tieback to our Appomattox hub after Rydberg, which came online last year. Now let's move to the financial results for the quarter. We delivered solid results in a price environment that was relatively stable compared with last quarter. Our adjusted earnings were $5.6 billion, up 52% compared with Q4. We generated $11.9 billion of cash flow from operations, excluding working capital. Consistent with outflows seen in the first quarter of recent years, working capital in Q1 was an outflow of $2.7 billion. Now turning to our businesses. Integrated Gas production was higher than in Q4, as the turnaround at Pearl GTL was completed. However, liquefaction volumes were lower because of unplanned outages in Australia. Our LNG trading and optimisation results were in line with Q4, and that's despite the higher non-cash paper losses recorded, which we highlighted would be seen across the first three quarters of the year. Upstream had a strong Q1, with continued high controllable availability. Norway, Nigeria offshore, and Kazakhstan all delivered above 98%. In Marketing, Mobility and Lubricants performed very well, as both continued to further increase premium product margins. However, the low carbon option businesses continued to operate in a difficult macro environment, which we highlighted at CMD. Chemicals also continued to see low margins this quarter, but with the divestment in Singapore, we expect that the Chemicals earnings contribution will improve. In Products, the contribution from trading and supply improved relative to the previous quarter, almost at similar levels to Q2 and Q3 of last year. Overall, a solid set of results in the first quarter of 2025. We are now into the second quarter, and there are significant macro uncertainties, but our approach remains the same. We are following through on the long-term direction we set at Capital Markets Day. At times like this, the importance of a strong balance sheet and a robust financial framework are critical. We have consciously positioned the company over the last few years, leaving us well placed. In Q1, our net debt position increased, reflecting lease additions from Pavilion and a drawdown from the loan facilities providers at the completion of the Nigeria onshore divestment. These are all known items, and our balance sheet continues to be one of the strongest in the industry. Moving on to shareholder distributions. Today, we have announced a $3.5 billion share buyback program, which we expect to complete by the time of our Q2 results announcement. This makes it the 14th consecutive quarter in which we have announced $3 billion or more in buybacks. With this new $3.5 billion share buyback program, we are well within our enhanced shareholder distribution range of 40%-50% of CFFO. A range that you can expect us to deliver on through the cycle, given our low distribution breakevens, $40 Brent for dividends, and buybacks continuing at $50. To summarize, in Q1, we delivered a solid set of results in a relatively stable price environment. Our portfolio transformation is progressing, with several major achievements during the first few months of 2025. Looking ahead, we are confident in the direction we have set and the strength of Shell to deliver for our shareholders through an uncertain macro. We will continue to focus on operational performance, be disciplined with cost and CapEx spend, and drive competitive and resilient returns. Most importantly, deliver on what we say. Finally, we hope that shareholders who are able to attend either virtually or in person will join us for our 2025 Annual General Meeting, which will take place on May 20th. Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. People dialed in, if you have a question, please press star one. If you wish to be removed from the queue, please press star two. Phone callers are requested to mute the audio on their computer webcast and listen attentively to their telephone audio as we begin to progress through the telephone questions. Thank you very much for joining us today. We hope that after watching this presentation, you've seen how we delivered a solid set of results in the first quarter, how we made meaningful progress in repositioning our portfolio to deliver on our targets, and the strength of the company to deliver through an uncertain macro. Today, Sinead and I will be answering your questions. Please, could we have just one or two questions each so that everyone gets the opportunity? With that, could we have the first one, please, Luke? Our first caller is Josh Stone from UBS. Hey, thanks. Good afternoon. Two questions, please. Wael, you've talked in the past about being or wanting to be more counter-cyclical in how you allocate capital, and you've clearly demonstrated that in the good times by being quite prudent with your capital spending. It just strikes me that in a downturn or potential downturn, it requires a lot more resolve to start spending more money or maybe sustaining the buyback. Just talk about your latest views on that and commitments to being more counter-cyclical. Second question on integrated gas. Trading looks to be a decent call for this time around, particularly if I adjust for the hedging losses. Some of your peers have talked about it being more difficult to trade in gas because of event risk and sort of more jitteriness in the markets. What's been your experience there, and what's your approach to putting on risk and putting risk on the books today? Thanks. Josh, thank you for those two questions. Let me take the first one and ask Sinead to answer the second one. On your question around sort of counter-cyclical capital allocation, I think let's start with what we're trying to do. We have said that we want to be able to unlock the full intrinsic value potential of this company, and we have said that free cash flow per share is going to be the key proxy, our North Star that we're going to drive towards. As you rightly say, what we have been doing over the past few years is, in essence, getting ourselves leaner and fitter for exactly the sort of uncertainty, for exactly the sort of cyclicality, which, of course, was inevitable. It just, we didn't know when it was going to happen and what's going to trigger it. I'm very glad that we are where we are today. The good news is, of course, as we outlined in Capital Markets Day 2025 just a month ago, for the next five years, we have given a very clear trajectory of 10%+ free cash flow per share growth between now and 2030 on the back of our organic opportunities. Everything else now has to compete with that when we talk about allocation of capital. Indeed, in a counter cycle, we have a couple of options. Of course, we can look at distributions and what we do there, and what we can do is also inorganic. I've said in the past we want to be value hunters. Today, value hunting, in my view, is buying back more Shell. Why? Today, our share price continues to be advantaged. We said in the past that the free cash flow yield meant it was advantaged, even more so today where things stand. You will see us continue with conviction to lead into the buybacks as we have been doing, and within that 40%-50% of CFFO range. We will be prudent. Of course, we will keep looking at inorganic opportunities. We have $1 billion-$2 billion in our cash CapEx guidance for that, but the bar is high, and we need to be able to see a pathway towards free cash flow per share accretion in a relatively short period. Sinead. Thank you, Josh. So indeed, LNG had a very good quarter, as you say. Very pleased with the outcome there. Let's take it into its component pieces. In terms of the assets, the assets performed well. What we saw was some downtime, some unplanned downtime from Prelude, but very quickly bringing it back up. We also had weather events. We did see some of the cyclone and different issues there in Australia, particularly hit both QGC and Gorgon. Despite that, we still actually had length. What that meant was that with demand remaining reasonably strong, we actually had strong margins as well. We were able to optimize around that. That is what you saw come through in terms of our results in Q1. Now, if we take it to Q2 and what could happen there, what I'm expecting to see is some planned maintenance, and you've seen us talk about that. You see it in the liquefaction volumes in terms of the forecast that we give. That's planned maintenance as you come into summer. It's what you see us typically do, and it's across a range of assets, whether it's Gorgon, whether it's Oman, LNG, etc., but it's across quite a range of them. We do expect to see similar volumes to what we actually saw in Q1 as well. Now, as of today, of course, prices are lower than they were in the last quarter, and we'll see how demand plays out accordingly. For earnings, you could see if you take the fundamentals and, of course, the hedging, the legacy hedging losses that you mentioned before that we've discussed, you could see that play out in terms of a lower or more pressure in terms of the earnings. That is on earnings. What I expect to see is strong and resilient cash. Why do I see it? Because those hedges that we just discussed are non-cash. Secondly, I expect to see some working capital unwind as well, which relates to the first quarter, because actually in the first quarter, what you have seen in cash was that actually we had quite high volumes of sales in March, and we need to collect that accounts receivable this quarter. Therefore, really resilient cash in Q2. Thank you very much, Sinead. Josh, thank you for those two questions. Luke, let's have the next question, please. Our next caller is Peter Lowe from Redmond Atlantic. Hello. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Yeah, the first was on the CapEx budget. You reiterated it this morning, but can you perhaps talk a bit about how much flexibility there could be there should the macro environment continue to deteriorate? The second one was just on the Singapore disposal. Can you help us at all in thinking about the potential quantum of the earnings improvement you will see now that that divestment has completed, particularly in Chemicals? Thanks. Thank you. Do you want to take both of those, Sinead? Sure. On the first one in terms of the CapEx budget, Peter, we have reiterated our $20 billion-$22 billion CapEx budget. Why have we done that? We have done it because of the position that we are in. We have spent a significant amount of time positioning this company over the last few years to make sure that we are able to manage not just run the company on fundamentals, but to ensure that we position it to be able to deliver through uncertainty. That is what is happening now. That is delivering through uncertainty for our shareholders. Therefore, from the perspective of capital, we are not asking our businesses, we are not requesting them to stop on projects, to remove themselves from different commitments, etc. We are asking them to deliver on exactly what they said and to perform as we have promised. We're not asking them to step back from a range of different aspects. We don't believe that at this moment in time we need to step back within the capital range that we've got. However, if you were to look back at what we've done in the past, if you go back to during the COVID times, we demonstrated a strong ability to be able to pull many levers. You saw, of course, our CapEx budget at that time being below $18 billion. The flex is there, but that's not the position we're in at the moment. We don't need to do that, and we see great opportunities for value. You've seen that in terms of some of the deals that we've done. You've just seen us take a further percentage in Ursa, which is, of course, something close to our heart. It's in deep water. It's in the Gulf of America where our team delivers incredibly well. Therefore, we have asymmetry of data and have the ability to deliver on our own operated asset. Singapore. Oh, Singapore. Almost forgot. Thank you. On the Singapore disposal, indeed, just finished this quarter. What we've said around Singapore is that it was loss-making. We do expect that to play out in terms of improvement in both the refinery margin and the Chemicals margin as you take it out of the books. It will, of course, contribute to our structural cost reductions. In terms of just giving you a bit of a feel for that, it's several hundred million is the impact if you were to take it across the full year. I hope that's helpful. Thank you for that, Sinead. Peter, thank you for those questions. Luke, the next caller, please. Our next caller is Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Thank you and good afternoon to you both. A couple of questions, if I could. The first one, just we talked about volatility and uncertainty, but given the size of Shell's own network, what are you seeing on real-time data in terms of demand, whether it's oil, oil products, LNG, just to kind of give us an indication of kind of some of the fundamentals? Secondly, on OpEx, progress again, very, very good. What are you finding when you're taking these costs out? Are you finding it becomes easier and easier to simplify things as you're taking some of those layers out? Thanks. Thanks, Lydia. I'll cover both. I think on your first question around just where the macro is right now, I think it's fair to say that we are, of course, watching all the potential headwinds there, but we haven't yet been able to translate that from the data that we have. The data is showing that by and large, oil products and LNG are holding up from a demand perspective for different reasons. LNG, for example, of course, the low storage levels in Europe have meant that there is quite a large draw into Europe for LNG volumes, and there isn't a huge amount of new supply coming on stream in 2025. That tightness continues in the market. In crude and in products, what we're finding is a well-balanced market at the moment. We keep our eye on a few key signposts. Marine bunker fuel and diesel into trucking are usually the first indicators of broader economic slowdown. We're looking at those carefully. After that, you start to look at things like, for example, jet aviation, people traveling, or gasoline into passenger vehicles. Again, we monitor those particularly carefully to be able to see what the trends are. Particularly, we're looking at U.S. and China trends where the ongoing tariff situation means that those will be likely amongst the first to be impacted. That's what we are currently keeping an eye on. When it comes to OpEx, we're very proud of the organization's momentum on this. I mean, it's been so much hard work. I think I've mentioned in the past, when we put the $3 billion, $2 billion -$3 billion ambition in Capital Markets Day 2023, and we're able to deliver a year ahead of time at the top end of that range, this was very much a top-down target. Now what we're seeing is actually the organization starting to bring forth the ideas that could potentially take out costs. That is starting to play through, and you see it, as you've rightly pointed out, in the financials. We're trying to address that from multiple different points, whether it's supply chain and how we sharpen our focus on the supply chain, how we avoid incubating projects that are going to eventually die too long and killing them early. How do we continue to look at the way we are structured as a company, delayer, simplify? How do we simplify the corporate center so that we can become leaner and clearer? All of those elements are starting to play up, but I would say there is a lot more to do. We are nowhere close to our potential, and that's what I'm keen to really drive over the coming years to unlock the full potential of this incredible company. Thank you for the questions, Lydia. Luke, next caller, please. Our next caller is Paul Cheng from Scotiabank. Thank you. Good morning. I just want to follow- up on the Lydia's question in the sense that Shell is a big ship, and I think you guys have done a phenomenal job in turning it. At this point, do you think the organization's capability or the culture has turned sufficiently that if you decide that the large acquisition that is attractive for you that the organization could take on, or that it's going to take maybe another one or two years to ensure that all the culture, all the changes is really fully singed in? That's the first question. The second question is that in the event your oil price stays really low for an extended period of time, and I say really low, say call it to the 40s, between the buyback and capital, the CapEx cut, which one will be the first to go? T hank you. Thank you, Paul. Two great questions. I'm going to give the tougher one to Sinead in a second. That's number two. Thank you. I'll go for the culture question. I want to start by sort of saying we start from a very, very good place in the culture of Shell. The ethical bar that we have held ourselves to, the real sort of care for people, focus on safety, all of these are elements we have been holding on to. What we have tried to supplement that with is what we call the winning performance culture. It's that next level. It's that hunger to win. It's our ability to be able to move from accepting mediocrity to really, every time we do something, yes, we celebrate, but we very quickly look at what more we can and should be doing. Is that fully rooted in where we are today? No. I'll be honest with you, we have more work to do. What we see is a lot of green shoot. We see multiple parts of Shell starting to really move from, let me explain the story of how good we're doing, to actually, let's park that and look at what the gap is to our full potential as a company. That, to me, is the sign of an organization that is going to be the winning organization. We have more work to do in that space, despite the excellent progress that we have seen over the last couple of years. You're right to also point out that before we ever look at inorganic, sizable inorganic, we have to have our own house in order. What I would say is, in the parts where we have really seen that, where we have seen our capability to be able to really create value through the culture, we are making moves. I'll give you one simple example. Pavilion. Pavilion is an LNG acquisition we did. We had a very clear view that this is a complex portfolio, multiple challenges, would take us several months to be able to integrate into Shell. We closed on the deal end of March. Today, we stand in a position where that LNG team has already been able to integrate Pavilion into Shell within weeks. That, to me, is an example of where the culture is thriving. That is where I'm willing to bet on inorganic opportunities where we know we can unlock more value through bringing that asset into Shell because we have that comparative advantage and we have the culture and capability to do it. Sinead. Indeed. Your second question was really around if oil prices are lower at $40, what are we going to do? On that one, Paul, we were very careful and we discussed it long and hard before Capital Markets Day to actually be able to frame it for you in Capital Markets Day because we knew that there is always uncertainty and we wanted to be able to show you our frame, our thinking for after if prices were to move from $70 down to that sort of level. Let me take you through it in terms of $50 first. At a $50 mark, what we've said is assuming we're at $50, our CFFO would be, roughly speaking, somewhere between $35 billion-$40 billion. In that world, we have a number of levers. We can pull the lever, of course, of CapEx, which you've mentioned. We can also, of course, use OpEx. We can pull on divestments, although that could be difficult at that point in time. Of course, we can consider our distributions. For us at $50, what we've said is we will continue share buybacks at $50. What we've given you the model of is to basically say we'll pull a little bit on our CapEx, so we'll bring it down, and we know we can. I just gave you that answer earlier in terms of Peter's question. We would also continue to maintain the buyback at that point. What we've modeled out is at 40%. Our distribution range is 40%-50%. Assuming we have somewhere between $35 billion and $40 billion of CFFO, that comes out at $8 billion on our dividends and roughly some $6 billion-$7 billion of share buybacks. We would continue doing buybacks at that level, and we would have the ability to lean on the balance sheet from a small amount given the strength of our balance sheet today. That tells you how focused we are on that buyback. You then move to a $40 world. What we showed you there was we showed you the paradigm of $40 for a long period of time, assuming that our CFFO came down below the $35 billion or roughly around the $35 billion mark. Again, assuming that we distribute towards the lower end of our range at that point and we do 40%, we would be easily able to cover our $8 billion of dividends, just roughly using rough numbers. Of course, for us, the important thing is to be able to try and maintain the buyback as long as we can. Hopefully, that's what you see. Our focus is, of course, in those sort of worlds, you would see our share price going down as well. I alluded to earlier. It's a great position for us to be in at the moment. With a $3.5 billion buyback, we're buying back even more shares than we were before because the price has come down. It's a great allocation of capital. That's what you'd expect us to see and continue to look to do as prices continue to come down. Thank you for that, Sinead. Paul, thank you for those questions. Luke, next caller, please. Our next caller is Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Hi there. Firstly, thanks for the comment around the financial frame and that $50 scenario. That's really helpful. I wanted to ask a question or two questions. The first one's just on the various deals you've done. You've done a number of small deals where some are closed, some are to come, and not all of the sort of financial magnitude is disclosed. Could you just help us understand the sort of cash impacts of these? It's still not clear to me what you paid for Pavilion, and then you've got the Singapore sale and a few others. The second question is just on in the upstream, thinking about OpEx and DD&A now that we deconsolidate Nigeria from the portfolio, is the Q1 run rate sensible, or how should we think about that going forward? Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to take those? Sure. Yeah. In terms of two parts, Biraj, on Pavilion and Singapore. The way I would look at it in terms of the cash impact on Pavilion, you saw we haven't disclosed the price that we give on it, but you can see in terms of how it plays out, it's largely a small amount of capital went out for it, but it's largely the leases that come through. You saw that in our net debt, and you saw it was below $1 billion, but you see it in that sort of range. That will flow through. I wouldn't expect much impact in terms of really impacting the earnings from Pavilion this year. You'll start to see it in 2026, and that's just the way the contracts play out. On Singapore, the divestment, you saw it in our divestment proceeds. You would have seen divestment proceeds of, roughly speaking, $600 million for this quarter. That is largely Singapore, and there is a little bit of small items like Iraq loan repayment and things like that, but you see that coming through. What we have disclosed on that is that we have the Singapore was loss-making, so you will see us have basically a price, it is a relevant price. You will just see free cash flow and intrinsic value improved as a result of that transaction. The other one that you did not mention, but I suspect is also on your mind, is SBDC, so the Nigerian divestment. If I were to take the Nigerian divestment and the Singapore divestment together, they are, roughly speaking, neutral in this current price environment. My free cash flow would be roughly neutral. What I'm probably more interested in is the fact that I will obviously have, and you were going there, the impact on OpEx. You haven't seen my OpEx improvements yet in terms of either Singapore or SBDC. Only a small amount of that came through in the quarter. You'll start to see that come through throughout the year, and of course, it will take us a while as people move out. That was on the first one and partially on the second. In other words, yes, more to come on OpEx. In terms of DD&A, you did start to see that come through this quarter. Biraj, you'll have seen that one of the improvements that we saw on upstream was, of course, lower well write-offs versus Q4, but also lower depreciation. That's also linked to the reserves. Just as you saw us come through in Q4, we updated our reserves number. Good catch on that. Thank you, Sinead. Thank you, Biraj, for those questions. Luke, next caller, please. Our next caller is Giacomo Romeo from Jefferies. Yes. Thank you for taking the question. If I can go back to the Pavilion acquisition, I'm just trying to understand a bit better why you don't expect to see an impact on earnings this year. Was just Pavilion not generating any profit? What changes next year in terms of contracts? Just trying to understand what are the moving parts there that actually drive your ability to extract profit out of what you're getting as part of the Pavilion deal. On the $50 scenario, you represent the better you had it in the CMD slide as well. You mentioned that you would see the potential for reducing CapEx a bit. You show that in the chart there. Which areas will you be seeing the reduction? Can you provide more clarity there where you would prioritize CapEx? That would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you for that, Giacomo. Let me take the second question first, and then if you want to come back to the Pavilion point. What I want to avoid doing, Giacomo, is almost locking myself down for one reason. I think the biggest thing we have tried to do is to become much more dynamic in our capital allocation as Shell. What we used to do was sort of worry about, does the capital dollar go into upstream or into downstream? What we're trying to do now is to say, does that capital dollar go into either of those or into inorganic or into more buybacks or into deleveraging? We're trying to make sure that we are always dynamic and looking at where the market is and looking at where the best opportunities are. Now, having said that, of course, there is, call it a maintain level of capital. The proxy that Sinead used earlier, the less than $18 billion, which is where we were in the COVID times, gives you a sense of what is a healthy maintain level. Today, we're talking about a range of $20 billion -$22 billion, which, of course, has growth embedded in it. Important to recognize there's $1 billion -$2 billion of inorganic capital that is available to us in that context. Now, in that environment, we can either choose to deploy that capital because we can create counter-cyclical value, life cycle value for our shareholders, or we can pull it back if we still do not see the opportunities. What I would say is trust us to continue to be prudent in making sure that every dollar of our shareholders' capital is looked at with the rigor that you would expect of us, making sure that we take advantage of the opportunities at the right points in the cycle and where we do not see those opportunities to make sure we hold on to that capital, as you have seen us do at the right points in time over the last few years. Sinead? In terms of Pavilion, Giacomo, really what I'm trying to say is what our traders do incredibly well is being able to have flexibility and access. As Wael said, we've managed to integrate this into the company very rapidly. They've done a great job on it, but it's a series of contracts. There's a mixture of contracts and assets that come with it. Those contracts include both derivatives and physical, and they have different timing impacts. Therefore, you see that really play out whenever those all come in together, and that's really towards next year. There's lots of puts and takes on it, which will determine value. We also, of course, have the physical side of it. We have five vessels. We have a number of access to re-gas terminals, etc. By being able to have that flexibility to be able to optimize, that's where they truly make money. Of course, it's just the timing of when they get access to those and how full they are, etc. Pleased with how it's been integrated so far and really looking forward to them deriving the value that they've promised us, and that'll really be into 2026. Absolutely. Thank you for that, Sinead. And Giacomo, thank you for your questions as well. Luke, next caller, please. Our next caller is Henry Tarr from Berenberg. Hi there, and many thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to ask about marketing. Both Mobility and Lubricants had a very strong quarter, which certainly suggests underlying demand. We have not seen a slowdown so far, as you mentioned earlier. I just wondered whether there is anything else going on there from a sort of self-help perspective as we think about modeling out for the rest of the year. Maybe sectors and decarbonization to sort of round it out. The environment remains pretty weak, and we are seeing a decline. Are there any signs of light at the end of the tunnel for this business? Thanks. Thank you. I think one sort of broad question. Did you want to address that? Yeah, certainly. In terms of indeed strong quarter for our marketing business, very pleased to see that it was higher than Q4, as you say. Let me break it into those three parts that you alluded to. First of all, on Mobility, it was actually quite similar to Q4, but actually good for Q1 because we have not come into driving season yet. They are doing a great job in terms of making sure exactly that self-help point. Driving costs down, focusing in on advertising, focusing in just on every dollar that they spend, but also on the premium products. That is where you start to see the margin coming through. Significant progress there, and I look forward to seeing further throughout the year. On the Lubricants side of things, it was indeed a good quarter for Lubricants. We saw strong margins really driven by that premium fuel or the premium lubricants that they've been selling. They're doing a great job on that. Frankly, last year was sort of their best year ever, and we continue to see them hit new records. Looking forward to seeing exactly what they can do next. Sectors and decarb, a bit different. There's obviously component pieces to that, but it was more challenged, as you say, particularly this quarter. It's difficult across the whole environment. There are a couple of things in there. We see pockets of strength, of course, in terms of trading. We did see some of the uncertainty and some good pockets of making money through our trading organization, particularly in the U.S. in advance of the tariffs coming through. Of course, we also see challenges in places like Raízen, which in Brazil, it's a difficult environment, difficult crops at the moment, and of course, just high interest rates. Mixed space there, and we look forward to watching the space very closely to see how that continues to develop. For us, biofuels is something that we can optimize around our traders, but also, of course, the short that we have within our own Mobility as well. We watch the space closely given how tough it is. Thank you, Sinead. I have to say very proud of how our marketing organization is showing up with all the focus on the transformation that they have been through. I expect a lot more to come. Thank you for those questions, Henry. Can we go to the next quarter, please, Luke? The next caller is Matt Lofting from JP Morgan. Thanks for taking the questions. Two quick ones, please. Shell has a substantial business in the U.S. across the value chain. I wonder if you could share any perspectives you currently have on the direct impact of the tariff framework, at least as it stands at the moment, and whether there's any specific assets where you see potential effects. Secondly, if we combine the upstream and integrated gas business, there's a track record over the last four to six quarters of beating consensus expectations. To what extent do you see that as fruition of the performance improvement agenda over the last couple of years, and how sustainable do you see that performance going forward? Thank you. Matt, thank you for that. Let me take the first one and then ask Sinead to address the second one. Yes, we have a very material position in the U.S. We're the largest player in the Gulf of America, and I think really pleased with the positions we have there, some of the best zip codes in the Gulf. We are, of course, also the largest offtaker of U.S. LNG and, of course, a significant presence in Shell Pennsylvania and Shell Polymers Monaca, which is our petrochemical facility. Indeed, we have good line of sight to things there. What I would say, maybe starting with the global picture around tariffs, is we at the moment see relatively limited impact to us, and what we see is manageable. Of course, the quarter first order impacts are more related to the supply chain than they are related to energy product sales. What we are doing is we are looking for mitigations around that. As an example, in the U.S., Sparta, one of the major facilities we are developing, already had a significant portion of their steel purchased well before the tariffs hit. There was a lot of work that was ongoing in anticipation and therefore to mitigate and de-risk some of these issues. The bigger question we are looking at when it comes to the tariff impact is, of course, the second order impact. What that means to the real economy, what it means to supply demand. That, of course, has a lagging impact. It is unlikely to be within a quarter or two. As we look into 2026, that is what we keep our eye on in terms of how it plays out. So far, knock on wood, it has been very manageable, and the teams are doing well to be able to make sure there is very limited pain to the organization. Yeah. In terms of integrated gas and upstream, I think just thank you for recognizing what the teams have done, Matt, because if you take it back to Capital Markets Day 2023, what we said to you then was that if we own these assets, we're going to run them well. We're going to be the rightful owners of these, or we shouldn't be in them. What you've seen are both our integrated gas teams and the upstream teams do is take that on board. They are running very, very hard, and they're not just running hard to drive down costs. They're running hard to maximize performance. They do it with the lens that they know what the competitive benchmark is. They're very much focused around performance, discipline, and simplification. That allows them to free up the thinking as to where they should spend their time. One example of that is we know there's going to be uncertainty. We know that issues can occur. When something goes down, it's how quickly can they get it back up and running? Prelude is a wonderful case in point, which we've seen since the turnaround that it will go down. If it goes down, how quickly can we get it back? It's 60% less time to get it back up again. That focus means that we're driving for cash. We're driving for every single dollar, and that's what this team is doing. They're managing through the uncertainty. They continue to have that drive, that wish to perform. It doesn't matter which part of the world you're talking about, that competitive spirit is there, and I think it's going to continue. Very much so. Thank you for those questions. Matt, now let's go to Luke for the next quarter, please. Our next caller is Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. Hi, hello, and I'll share two questions if I may. I wanted to ask you about the market conditions that you see for disposals. I can imagine that with all the uncertainty that exists, it may have become more difficult to execute some of the disposals that you're still working on, but hard to know. I was wondering how you see that, how you see basically the disposal market. Then secondly, slightly more practical perhaps, but I was wondering where we are now with LNG Canada because it looks like we're sort of relatively close to the start-up and how we can expect the quarterly earnings stream to be impacted by that project. Thank you. I always take the LNG Canada question, but I'm going to hand it over to you this time, Sinead. I'll quickly touch on the disposals. The biggest thing I'd say, Martijn, is thankfully we have been working for the past two years to get well ahead of this. I mean, if there's one thing that I'm most proud of in Q1, yes, the results were great to see, but I'm very proud of the culmination of significant effort for a number of years to be able to, in essence, move beyond Nigeria onshore, a huge, huge undertaking, and congratulations to the team for completing that. Singapore, Energy and Chemicals Park, another major achievement. Of course, Pakistan. Those were the biggest elements of our disposal program. While others today are looking to dispose to be able to make their financial framework work, our focus now can be very much on actually delivering what we have promised, delivering the 10+% of free cash flow per share growth, by the way, the majority of which is not correlated to oil price. That is the position that I think is particularly nuanced for us. The majority of that 10% is coming from, well, 5%-7% comes from buybacks, and the rest is absolute free cash flow growth, which is not needing to be correlated to oil price because it is self-help from OpEx, flexing on CapEx as and when we need to. A lot of it is the transformation of downstream and renewables. It is the improvements we mentioned in Capital Markets Day 2025 in marketing. It is the uptick that we expect for chemicals. is our ability to turn around the rest business. That does not even include the upside that we see for trading in a volatile environment. That is very much where we are today. That is why, as we, of course, look at continuing to churn through the portfolio, the big ones are behind us. Yep. On LNG Canada, indeed, we're really pleased with the progress so far. Of course, you saw the commissioning cargo come in to be able to test all of the different aspects of the facility. We're still on track, of course, for the first cargo intended middle of this year. I won't comment on earnings because, of course, from our perspective, what we're really interested in is not the first cargo. We're interested in when it ramps up because Martijn, that's when it really starts to have a sizable impact into our numbers, both in terms of liquefaction volumes, but actually both earnings and cash. I'm much more interested in where we get to towards the end of the year. A reminder, of course, it's two trains. You're going to have the first train starting up, and then there's a lag until you get to the second train. I think you will see more of that flow, of course, coming through and the earnings impact in due course. Thank you very much, Martijn. Can we go to the next question, please, Luke? Our next caller is Roger Read from Wells Fargo. Yeah, thanks. Good morning or good afternoon, as the case may be. Maybe come back to the sort of resiliency question around slightly different tack. At the Capital Markets Day you laid out the cost savings goals. Presumably in a lower oil price environment, you would have a little more urgency to get that done. I'm just sort of curious how you're thinking about it that way. The second question or follow- on with that is, with the environment you're describing, obviously the cash flows and buying back shares is important, but how would you think about allocating on acquisitions in addition to thinking about the overall resiliency and the dividend and so forth? Let me take the first one and then ask Sinead to address the second one. Have a seat. I think let's go back to what we've been saying, Roger, for the last couple of years. I think hopefully what you've heard me say is we know this is a cyclical industry. We know there is going to be uncertainty, and therefore we believe there's three key characteristics of a winning company. It's making sure that we are consistent. It's making sure we're resilient, and it's making sure that we are disciplined in our capital allocation. All of that is underpinned by just being lean and fit. That's where the cost agenda plays in. I can tell you there is absolutely not any more urgency on the cost agenda than there was a few months ago because the cost agenda is a critical agenda, not just to be able to weather whatever choppy waters we're going into, but actually the cost agenda in my mind is an example of whether Shell deserves the alpha when it comes to operations. We need to be able to demonstrate that this is a company that has that operational alpha on a consistent basis. The cost is an important metric in that. This is not cost cutting for cost cutting's sake. We are willing to put more costs in the areas where we can unlock more value, but really being very focused on where there is waste in the organization, where can we enhance productivity? That is playing in through AI, through what we are doing in that space. Supply chain, we still think there is a lot more to go in the supply chain space. I can tell you there is a massive amount of urgency in the organization, and that will continue not just for the $5 billion -$7 billion, but as we continue to really build that muscle of being the best we can be as Shell. Sinead? Indeed. Thank you, Roger. Yes, your question around buybacks versus acquisitions. I think we've been very clear that value creation is the key. It's the North Star of what we're going after. Of course, that's why we say free cash flow per share is the measure that we do. Everything we do has to rank against basically the shares and the buying back of the shares. We've just talked about the fact that as oil prices have gone down, they've actually got cheaper. It's an even better capital allocation for us. There's no reluctance from our side in terms of going after value elsewhere. We're not afraid to go after it, but the bar is incredibly high. Of course, you see that. We have the option, of course, within our own organic portfolio as well. Just to remind you, even when we looked at the upstream portfolio that we drew out in terms of what sort of projects we will start delivering before 2030, we give you examples of projects which on average have break- evens of $35. You can see how attractive even our own portfolio is. We then, of course, have those buybacks that we just discussed, which are incredibly cheap, and therefore it is a good allocation of capital. Finally, we have, of course, M&A. We have that option to be able to go there. We are incredibly well positioned for that. If you remember where our balance sheet is, we have positioned the balance sheet such that we have more than $35 billion of cash. We have lines of credit that we could utilize if we need to, but it's just not something that's on our mind because we have all of the options available to us. Yeah, well positioned to be able to go after wherever we see value, whether that happens to be the buybacks even further or whether that happens to be in terms of acquisitions. Nice position to be in. Thank you, Sinead. Roger, thank you for those questions. Luke, next quarter, please. Our next caller is Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. Thank you. Two questions from me as well, if I may. While this is coming from not a cynical place, you mentioned earlier that perhaps the problem in the past was Shell's culture happy to accept mediocrity. Maybe I would put it differently and ask you, isn't some of the biggest weaknesses or has been in the past, I'm always going to call it hubris, i.e., we can do this. No one else can. I want to ask you about the Rotterdam position that you've taken. Can you give us an update on that, where you're stepping back from things that perhaps five years ago had been part of the overall Shell ambition? Open question. As I said, it's not coming from a cynical place. Second question, perhaps to you, Sinead. You presented just a few weeks ago a marketing capital budget of up to $3 billion. In the first quarter, I see marketing spent $250 million. What did you do to these people? How much lower can it go in terms of explaining that very light capital allocation in just Q1? Are there any funnies in there? Just a quick follow- up, please. Thank you. Thank you for that, Christopher. You never come from a cynical place. I absolutely do not have to sort of precede that. Look, from a cultural perspective, you can call it hubris or whatever. I think at the end of the day, what happened was we took quite some risk in particular with our capital allocation that in retrospect, as we have done a lot of the reviews to learn, to learn because there is a lot we have learned over the last 20 years, and a lot of that has actually helped shape the way we are thinking about the organization right now. The fact that we have such an incredible technical capability almost meant that we can drive more and more complex projects with an assumption that the risk was going to be linear. Of course, it was not. It becomes logarithmic. What typically catches us out is not the theoretical perfection of building a project. It is all the realities around it. It is the supply chain disruptions. It is permitting delays. It is the market changes while we are building this facility. It is the cumulative risk of putting multiple units together and then figuring out that it is more challenged. That is the issue. What we have tried to do is to go for much more digestible opportunities and really look at the appropriate risk-adjusted returns for our investments. Really become much more forensic. Today, when I get a business proposal, there are a few things that are different than what it was in the past. One is we have a full-time red team that is looking at the counterview of why we might be wrong with this to really challenge our basic assumptions. That was something we learned from BG and instituted in Shell. A second thing we do is we look at track record. What is our track record in that space? The third thing we do is what is the alternative use of that capital in the context of the Rotterdam project, to be specific on what you described? Yes, we looked at the market around us. We saw length in biofuels in particular coming from the U.S. We saw backtracking on mandates in Europe, and we saw a volatile environment. To simply just plow on and put more capital is not wise capital allocation. We have a responsibility. Sinead and I have a duty of care to our shareholders in the way we discharge their capital. That is why we felt at the time we pause it, and it is still under pause as we look at the broader environment around us and what we can do with the project to see whether we are able to justify investing more in it. Sinead. Thank you. I think actually a lot of what you said is particularly relevant here in terms of marketing. Chris, if you were to look back at, of course, Q1 last year as well, what we have seen, of course, then was that it was the lowest CapEx spend for the year as well. Q1 tends to be for marketing, much lower than elsewhere. I would not say we have done anything per your use of phrasing to the team. It is more actually they are really stepping up. Exactly where Wael went to, they are very much focused on just what are the alternative uses, and they have raised the bar themselves. Part of it is phasing, part of it is raising the bar, and the other part is the dynamic capital allocation. You mentioned actually in one of the earlier ones, they're very clear that it's not their CapEx. That is a bit of a change from in the past as well. It is much more about the group and what can we do with that. We are not being dogmatic about where we put the CapEx. We are looking at what are the comparatives, exactly what you said. Should we be doing buybacks? Should we be holding it? Are there more opportunities in upstream as an example as well? Thank you, Sinead. Chris, thank you for those questions. Luke, next caller, please. Our next caller is Lucas Herrmann from BNP Paribas. Yeah, thanks very much and afternoon to you both. Thank you very much for the call. A couple of, I might just wanted to touch on Chemicals. As you've mentioned, certain assets are up for strategic review. I just wondered whether how the market or the broader chemical market responded to those comments and where you were left in line with that. Your guidance on utilization for this quarter of 74%-82%, especially should I think of that as being unusually low? I know it's not dissimilar to the last quarter, but I guess I'm slightly surprised that perhaps the levels aren't increasing. Beyond that, a really simple one for you, Sinead, just on disclosure. I suspect you're trying to simplify things, but a lot of the marketing sheets have disappeared, which I presume is intentional. One of the numbers or some of the numbers that have disappeared as well are the breakdown of net income by Mobility, Lubricants, Sectors and Decarb, which makes life monitoring, return on capital, etc., exceptionally challenging. Intentional or just omission? Nothing that Sinead does is omission there, Lucas, but I'll leave her to respond to that. Chemicals, I think just to sort of reground us all, macro conditions continue to be very challenged and likely will be challenged for the coming months and years, in particular as we see the build-up in China. What we get to is a strategic decision to be able to move forward in that regional approach that we outlined in Capital Markets Day 2025 and looking at how we can do that. You didn't hear us talking about an outright divestment because of those difficult conditions. We talked about strategic and partnership opportunities to be able to do that. Now, since, of course, we went public with Capital Markets Day 2025, I'm pleased to report that we have had a lot of inbounds of interest. We are in the midst of a process right now to be able to have those discussions because this is not a simple who is bidding highest for this. This is much more of a discussion around what is the structure that is going to make sense for us? What are the exposures we want to see? We will take our time. We have said we want to take through the coming years to be able to make sure we get the best deal for our shareholders. That is something we will honor because this is not by any stretch of the imagination that we want it to be a fire sale. This has to be value creating for us to the best of our abilities. On your point around the 74%-82%, what, of course, is always challenging when we give these numbers is we're basing it on our assumption around where do we actually want to have the facilities running and where are we switching it off because right now the margins mean that we are cash negative. That is why you continue to see us in the way we report it. This is a choice point where we actually switch off certain units to be able to make sure that we're not bleeding cash when we can avoid it. The biggest, of course, indicator of all is what's happening in Shell Polymers Monaca. I can say that in Shell Polymers Monaca, the performance continues to be strong in the way they are producing. There it's a question of continuing to premiumize the sales of our products. Sinead. Indeed. And Lucas, indeed, it was intentional. It was not by omission. You are spot on. It was very much about focusing in on just simplifying our reporting. It is both an acknowledgment of how much we give in terms of disclosures of just an awful lot of data that many people do not use and relative to our peers. Probably more importantly, it was about actually just the work that goes into producing it. For us, what we have done is we have given you the sub-segment for marketing at the adjusted EBITDA level. You get that quarterly. Of course, we give you the capital employed also at that subsegment level annually, which is when it really matters given the level of CapEx that we have got coming through. That's important, of course, so that you can see exactly per your point back to that Rwachi disclosures or the targets or the views, ambitions of where we wanted to go to later on. You can see that coming through and you can measure us against it. One of the, just without boring you on the detail, Lucas, we were really struggling with being able to give some sensible allocations of things like tax between mobility versus lubricants versus biofuels, for instance, in a specific country. It just did not make sense. We were spending so much time and effort and cost on doing it versus the value that you get out of it. Nothing more than that than a simplification effort. Thanks, Sinead. Lucas, thank you for those questions. Luke, can we go to the next question, please? Our final caller today is Doug Leggate from Wolfe Research. Thank you. Good morning from New York and good afternoon over there. While you're on Sinead, I know you talked earlier about the importance of per share growth targets, the 10% you talked about earlier. There is an underlying assumption in there, which is a flat real oil price at $70 and a buyback pace. My question is, to what extent would you be prepared to lean on the balance sheet to maintain the current buyback pace? If not, what would that mean then for your per share targets if the flat real oil price scenario did not play out? I have a quick follow up, please. Good. I'll say a few words and then Sinead, if you want to pitch into this last question as well. Look, I think there's a few things there, Doug, that you touch on. Firstly, the 5%-7% that we're assuming is going to be the buybacks that are underpinning the per share growth. If anything, at the moment, of course, we're on the upside to that because what's happening is as we see that our shares are even more advantaged in today's environment, we continue to be able to buy back at healthy levels. Therefore, I would like us, I'd like to see us achieving comfortably that 5%-7% going forward. To the fundamental of your question, to the fundamental of your question around, are we comfortable leaning on the balance sheet? Yes. Sinead said it, I've said it. I mean, we have built the balance sheet for the purpose of being able to transact on a daily basis with our big trading outfit, but also to be able to do exactly this at exactly this point in time, which is create shareholder value. Whether that shareholder value is best created through more buybacks or whether that shareholder value is created through an inorganic or the like, that is what we talk about dynamic capital allocation. Important not to forget the other part, the top line of the free cash flow per share growth. That top line still has a lot of running room, as I mentioned earlier, that is not correlated to oil price. That is not even including elements like our integrated gas portfolio and what growth it is going to give us and, and, and. Just the downstream renewables upside that we have and the self-help on both OpEx and CapEx is what will underpin that 10+% that we continue to see resilient through much lower oil prices as well. Did you want to add to that before? I think the only thing I would say is just to reinforce the balance sheet has been positioned. The portfolio has been positioned. That's exactly what we've been doing over the last couple of years. In terms of the portfolio, even just Singapore divestment that we alluded to or discussed earlier, Doug, that is not about flat price. By taking that out, we've talked about the fact it was loss making. That is actually loss making asset that comes out and therefore increases the free cash flow as it comes out. That's totally irrelevant to or totally disregarding price. That will happen anyway. OpEx, CapEx, which Wael you mentioned. In terms of the balance sheet, just to remind you, we're sitting at 7% gearing if I exclude leases. We are very well positioned to be able to lean on that balance sheet. You have seen us do it before in quarters where we have needed to, and we will continue to do so. Thank you, Sinead. Doug, did I hear you saying you had something else? Yeah, very quick follow- up is hopefully my second question. It's on the $5 billion-$7 billion cost savings. I just wondered very quickly, Wael, if you could tell us where you are on that range now that you've had the portfolio changes in Nigeria and Singapore, as Sinead just mentioned. I'm just trying to figure out how much of the $5 billion-$7 billion is portfolio related and where you would consider to be on the run rate of that today. I'll leave it there. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Doug. Did you want to take that last one? Yeah, I think I'll keep it simple, Doug, on it. The $3 billion already delivered by the end of 2024 was, in effect, as you know, the first year was much more on the portfolio side. The second year was much more moving towards actually just structural changes. We'll give you a formal update at the end of Q2, but what we see primarily into the second part, which goes towards delivering the $5 billion -$7 billion, it's much more about the way and the changes through the company, so the way we run the company. Taking out both of those assets has removed several hundreds of millions from OpEx. That will only happen, of course, as you run through the year. It's not as though it happens immediately because, of course, there are both internal changes and people need to move over as do the assets. Good progress and yeah, convinced that we will deliver our target. Thank you very much, Sinead. Thank you for that, Doug. I think that brings us to the end. Thank you all for your questions and for joining this call. In conclusion, we delivered a solid set of results in this first quarter and announced another $3.5 billion of share buybacks, which makes this the 14 quarters in a row with announced buybacks of at least $3 billion. Looking ahead, given our track record of delivery and our strong balance sheet, we head into the rest of the year with confidence as we continue to deliver more value with less emissions. Wishing you all a very pleasant weekend. Thank you for joining us and look forward to catching up again soon. Thank you.