Welcome to the Vopak Analyst Presentation FY 2020. Throughout the call, all participants will be in a listen-only mode, and afterwards there will be a question and answer session. Today, I'll hand over the call to Laurens de Graaf, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead with your meeting. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our 2020 Q4 and full-year results. My name is Laurens de Graaf, Head of Investor Relations, and today our CEO, Eelco Hoekstra, our CFO, Gerard Paulides, will guide you through our latest results. Also, our COO, Frits Eulderink, is here and will be available for questions during the Q&A sessions. We will refer to the full year 2020 analyst presentation, which you can follow on screen and download from our website. After the presentation, we will have the opportunity for Q&A, and a replay of the call will be made available on our website. Well, before we start, I would like to remind you of our safe harbor for forward-looking statements. This disclaimer is also applicable for Q&A throughout the entire conference call. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Eelco. Thank you, Laurens. A very good morning, every one of you who's joining us on the call here today. It is my pleasure to share with you our fourth quarter and full-year results of 2020. As usual, I will give a short introduction on the results and the execution of our strategy, and Gerard will update you on the financial performance. Let's begin with slide 4 and review the highlights. 2020 has been an exceptional year in which we have grown EBITDA post-divestments. We delivered good results in a more volatile business environment. We've outperformed on costs to defend EBITDA and delivered growth through expansion projects despite construction delays as a result of COVID-19. The pandemic has impacted the industries we serve. We've seen unprecedented changes in the supply and demand of gas, chemicals, and oil, and subsequently, a response of our customers to their portfolios and supply chains. We've experienced an acceleration in the energy transition, and we've seen the high dependency on digital infrastructure. Our strategy is aligned with these trends, and strategy delivery progressed well in 2020. We continued transforming our portfolio for the future and invested more than EUR 500 million in growth, resulting in an additional 1.6 million cubic meters of capacity to meet growing customer demand, particularly in Asia and the Americas. Good progress was especially made in our industrial terminal portfolio with the acquisition of the Dow Terminals on the U.S. Gulf Coast with our partner BlackRock. Our digital transformation is progressing well, and the pandemic highlighted the benefits of our leading digital infrastructure. We continued the rollout of our cloud-based system for our terminals as part of our broader efforts to deliver our digital architectures to support the industrial logistic chains. We're excited by the future prospects and keep our focus on performance and long-term value creation. We have momentum in capturing opportunities to serve large-scale industrial clusters, and we are advancing our efforts in developing infrastructure to support the energy transition. We will transform our portfolio and position our company strategically towards more sustainable forms of energy and feedstock. We continue investing in growth and aim to allocate the majority of our growth investments to industrial, gas, and new energies infrastructure. Our positive views on chemicals have not changed. New growth investments in oil infrastructure are expected to be reduced and will mostly be targeted towards strengthening our leading hub positions. We're also determined to bolster our leading position in our industry, both in service and sustainability towards customers and society. We continue to seek opportunities to reduce our environmental footprint and implement our sustainability roadmap towards our ambition to be climate neutral by 2050. For 2021 and beyond, we will keep storing vital products with care to make a meaningful contribution to a more sustainable society enabled by our financial performance. Allow me to give you an update on the COVID-19 impact on our company. 2020 has been an exceptional year for everyone. All of our lives have been touched by the global pandemic that came suddenly and abruptly. Everybody within Vopak has responded very well to keep all our terminals in operation and deliver uninterrupted service to our customers. I sincerely want to thank all employees and their partners, and also our customers, contractors, authorities, for working constructively and in good cooperative spirit together in these challenging times. Measures we have taken to manage this pandemic have proven to be effective. Our first priority is, and has been, to protect the health and wellbeing of our people, their families, the communities in which we operate, and strictly follow the local governmental instructions. Our strategy has remained unchanged, and we work on the basis of business as usual in an unusual time, in order not to delay decision-making. We have, already in 2020, put extra emphasis on governance. We continue to manage our performance and execute our strategy. As I mentioned, Vopak's strategy remains unchanged and is aligned with the trends that we experience today. Let me recap our strategic objectives. Our key objective is to deliver on a portfolio transformation focused on growing our portfolio towards gas and industrial terminals and strengthen our chemical and oil hub positions, and our aim is to add new energies and feedstocks in that mix. We closed the strategic divestment of five oil assets in Europe and China at attractive prices, and we have successfully announced significant projects in the last years. This year, we have delivered 1.6 million cubic meters of new capacity despite the current challenges. In new energies and feedstocks, we are expanding our capabilities and aim to allocate more growth capital to this segment. We already store ammonia in our network and have made our first investments in the hydrogen value chain and continue exploring opportunities globally. We aim to be the digital leader in the tank storage industry and strengthen our position as the leading independent tank storage company. We continue the rollout of our Vopak Digital Terminal Management and are exploring ways to integrate some of our innovations with our digital setup. These strategic objectives are geared to manage and progress the long-term value creation of Vopak. To deliver on performance, we've provided some guidance at the beginning of 2020. First of all, we mentioned we aim to grow EBITDA over time. New contributions from our growth portfolio will replace the EUR 70 million EBITDA from recent divestments. We aim to operate our portfolio with an occupancy rate between 85% and 95%, depending on the commercial and operational circumstances. Finally, we aim to deliver a Return on Capital Employed between 10% and 15%. This year, our financial performance has been influenced by multiple events and a volatile business environment. Market conditions in oil markets were supportive with contango and IMO 2020 converted capacity. This is positively visible in revenue, contract portfolio, and occupancy rates in oil. At the same time, market conditions in chemicals were mixed, and although occupancy rates have been stable, variable revenues were impacted by lower throughput activity levels. As a response, we managed our costs further down this year with operating costs below EUR 600 million in 2020. We delivered new contributions from growth projects in 2020. However, COVID-19 restrictions led to delays in commissioning of some of our growth and maintenance projects. The value of these growth projects is not affected. In 2021, new EBITDA from growth projects will therefore have replaced the divested EBITDA subject to market conditions. Lastly, our performance was influenced by the currency exchange movements and a one-off negative accounting result in Malaysia. Despite this all, we delivered good results and have grown revenues. We have also grown EBITDA by 3% post-divestments. Continuing to our next slide. Let me recap our view on the business environment and product markets in which we operate. Let me start with chemicals. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified the chemical industry's down cycle, as I mentioned in Q2. Impact on the demand for chemicals was very different. Consumable goods have been in high demand throughout the year, but demand for durable products suffered. In the second half of 2020, we saw improvements in the key end markets like automotive and construction with supply chains that started to restock. We've benefited from our portfolio composition and as a result, experienced relative stable occupancy rates at our chemical terminals. However, chemical throughputs have been lagging in 2020, impacting the variable component of our revenues. The oil markets have seen extreme high volatility during the year. The global drop in oil demand resulted in a supportive oil market structure for storage and improved occupancy rates. During the second half of the year, the contango curve flattened compared to extreme high levels of Q2 and currently is in backwardation for most oil products with the exception of jet fuels. We've benefited from the contango market and have contracted capacity with a solid contract portfolio in terms of pricing and contract tenor running into 2021. The gas markets were also impacted by lockdown measures and the dynamic oil markets. Global LNG demand declined for the first time in five years and saw volatile LNG prices. In recent months, LNG prices peaked, also supported by cold weather, and global LNG demand has taken a bullish start in 2021. The demand for Vopak's gas infrastructure has been resilient this year. Moving on to new energy. Momentum in renewable energies continued despite COVID-19. The speed of the transition to new energies might be further influenced by the government stimulus. Opportunities for Vopak will emerge for storage of renewable energy in liquids or gas. Therefore, we focus our business development efforts on opportunities in hydrogen and other liquids that can store energy, like ammonia. Within the dynamic business environment across products, our objective is to create long-term sustainable portfolio of assets. Let me say a few words on our portfolio positioning. We've made significant steps in our portfolio to create long-term value aligned with long-term trends. We've chosen for a portfolio with a focus on gas and industrial terminals and aim to add new energies and feedstocks in that mix. The current market dynamics support our belief that we are making the right choices, and w e made them timely. Well, let me expand on that point. The current market dynamics have a lot of companies question their portfolio. We, as Vopak, have already made those choices, and in the last five years, we kept the core and directed business development efforts towards new priorities. We will continue transforming our portfolio and position our company towards more sustainable forms of energy and feedstock. We're excited by the future prospects and are committed to continue investing in growth. We have momentum in capturing opportunities to serve large-scale industrial clusters and are advancing our efforts in developing infrastructure to support the energy transition. Our aim is to allocate the majority of our growth investments to industrial gas and new energies infrastructure. Our positive views on chemicals have not changed. New growth investments in oil infrastructure are expected to be reduced and will most likely be targeted towards strengthening our leading hub positions. Today's announcement to invest infrastructure in storage of renewable feedstocks in the Port of Rotterdam is fully in line with our capital allocation outlook. Allow me to share some details on our industrial terminal and new energy developments. In December, we acquired three industrial terminals from Dow for the total consideration of $620 million. We've done this with our joint venture partner, BlackRock. The acquisition strengthens Vopak leadership in industrial terminals globally and is a transformative change for the U.S., expanding our capacity for 2.3 million cubic meters post project completion. We have momentum in capturing opportunities to serve large-scale industrial clusters. The industry sees advantages of outsourcing industrial storage activities to specialists like Vopak. We aim to expand our leadership in industrial terminals. We're continuing our efforts and progressing well with another industrial terminal development in China. Moving on to new energy. Vopak will play an important role in facilitating the new energy transition. Our portfolio is uniquely well positioned to capture opportunities for investments in new energies and feedstocks. First of all, we currently own and operate assets at major industrial sites in all major global energy centers. Location presence is crucial as we are the incumbent energy infrastructure operator. Secondly, we have the know-how and the experience in energy infrastructure. Today, we already own and operate ammonia at five terminals and methanol infrastructure at more than 10 locations. These are considered the energy carriers of the future. Thirdly, we have a strong brand and strong reputation as the independent and efficient quality operator. Skill is required to make ammonia, methanol, and hydrogen infrastructure projects feasible. An independent operator like Vopak supports investments in infrastructure for multiple users. As a member of the Global Hydrogen Council, Vopak sees the potential of hydrogen as a new energy carrier. Hydrogen has great potential to support decarbonized energy systems in a range of sectors. Vopak will align its business development efforts with the most likely roadmap for hydrogen introduction in our global energy system. Each sector will follow a different pathway to include hydrogen. The industrial sector is already consuming a lot of hydrogen, and we expect hydrogen consumption to grow in this sector for feedstock and as a power source. Initially, this would be sourced from locally produced hydrogen, from blue and green hydrogen production sites. The power sector will transition and use hydrogen as a buffer to cater for surplus and deficit renewable generation. Once sufficient hydrogen becomes available, hydrogen will also have a growing importance in the transportation sector for heavy vehicle and also for the maritime segment. Excess renewable hydrogen that is not locally consumed will be moved regionally and later on globally. Hydrogen import infrastructure will be required to accommodate these hydrogen production flows. We believe that hydrogen will ultimately develop into a global traded energy commodity. In which Vopak's infrastructure will play a crucial role to facilitate and balance global supply and demand. Let me give some insight in what you can expect from Vopak. We have a dedicated new energy team driving a range of options in our new business development funnel, following a new energy roadmap. As for industry, we are part of the H-Vision consortium, working on infrastructure solutions to help the industry in the port of Rotterdam decarbonize through large-scale use of blue hydrogen. As for power, in Singapore, we are exploring the potential use of hydrogen to power data centers with Keppel and explore the use of low-carbon ammonia for shipping. As for transport sector and distribution, we are exploring ammonia and maritime transport fuel and develop infrastructure for the necessary supply chains. We are currently exploring how to facilitate imports of hydrogen to the Netherlands and Germany, with potential supply chains originating in Southern Europe, Morocco, the Middle East and South America. In total, we currently pursue more than 10 infrastructure projects and studies, including participating in technology developments. In the second half of this decade, our aim is to invest sizable amounts in infrastructure to facilitate large-scale imports and distribution of hydrogen and ammonia in key energy demand centers and industrial consumption areas. Let me summarize our key messages before I hand over to Gerard. We have grown EBITDA post-divestments in a volatile business environment. Customers value our consistent service delivery. Our strategy execution progressed well, and we continue to invest in 2021 with confidence. We have a unique global portfolio, and we have momentum in capturing opportunities in industrial terminal opportunities and new energy developments. Moving on to the next part of this presentation, I would like to hand over to Gerard, who will explain more about our financial results. Thank you, Eelco. A very good morning to everyone. As Eelco said, we are actively positioning ourselves for the future. This makes our investment case exciting and part of the new economy. Meanwhile, we also focus on performance today, and I will update you on the financial performance of 2020. For more details, I refer to the Vopak 2020 Annual Report, as published this morning. It is also worthwhile to note that we have formatted the annual report in line with the European Single Electronic Format requirements, which is a unique first position of Vopak, even in Europe, to do this. Let's turn to the financial highlights. Vopak has adjusted quickly to the changing business dynamics of 2020, and EBITDA post divestments increased EUR 20 million, absorbing negative currency effects and a one-off negative accounting result related to our joint venture in Malaysia. We increased revenues, post divestments, and delivered our cost efficiency measures to defend EBITDA. Earnings per share came in at EUR 2.42 for 2020. Our financial framework and capital allocation priorities are unchanged, and we continue to invest in growth, sustaining and service CapEx and our digital infrastructure. In 2020, we invested EUR 525 million in growth and aim to invest EUR 300 million-EUR 350 million in 2021. On the returns to shareholders, we executed and completed our share buyback program of EUR 100 million, demonstrating our commitment to shareholder distribution. Our cash performance and balance sheet supports continued growth and increased distributions to shareholders, and we are growing our dividend to EUR 1.20. Before I update you on the 2020 results, I would like to first address the performance of the fourth quarter. Fourth quarter 2020, EBITDA of EUR 189 million was negatively impacted by a EUR 20 million one-off negative accounting result reported in our joint venture in Malaysia as part of Asia and Middle East division. Excluding this item, EBITDA would have been EUR 209 million. That is in line with consensus. Our industrial terminal, PT2SB in Malaysia, is a strong asset. It is a high value constructed and delivered at significantly lower construction costs. Incident at our customer's asset resulted in some delays in final commissioning. The fourth quarter is impacted by a one-off negative accounting result derived from final discussions on commissioning tariffs, fixed asset charges, and deferred tax implications. The commercial model of the terminal is very strong, based on a long-term industrial terminal concept. Next year, i.e., this year, 2021, we plan for more stable performance than we've seen throughout 2019 and 2020 for this particular asset. We also expect a EUR 50 million cash inflow for Vopak from share capital repayments in 2021. This may actually possibly delay into 2022. On top of all those moving parts, early 2020, we also received a distribution of EUR 85 million in cash early 2020. A lot of moving parts on this joint venture, as I also emphasized in our Q3 earnings update call. EBITDA growth was supported by strong performance in the Americas division from improved chemical contributions at Deer Park. Positive performance of the Europe and Africa division was supported by contributions from our new assets in Durban and Lesedi in South Africa that are now in operation after construction delays in 2020, which partly related to COVID-19. Let's look at the divisional performance and the trends in the quarters. The America division continued its strong performance in occupancy rates and results. The Asia and Middle East results were impacted by the one-off negative accounting result in Q4. The occupancy rate was influenced by out of service capacity in Singapore and a challenging chemical market. Some oil tanks have been brought back into operation in the fourth quarter in Singapore. The China and North Asia division continued to benefit from a good chemical storage market, driven by supply chain opportunities. Performance of Europe and Africa reflected the upswing in occupancy in the oil segment and contribution from new assets. Let me take you through our financial performance of the year in a bit more detail. In our last call, we highlighted the various levers that have impacted our performance in 2020. The starting point to look at these numbers is the new portfolio after having divested five oil terminals against an attractive value. Changes in the business environment resulted in a net negative contribution. Market dynamics in oil markets and chemical markets for consumable products were positive. However, currency headwinds and reduced chemical throughputs have reduced our performance. We've taken cost measures to defend EBITDA, and we've delivered on growth projects despite the construction delays that I already mentioned. Excluding the Malaysia item, EBITDA was EUR 812 million in 2020. On the next page, we will have a look at 2020 versus 2019 EBITDA, but now with a divisional performance angle. The European and Africa division post-divestments had a strong performance, supported by higher occupancy rates throughout the year and contribution from new assets. Strong performance in the Americas division was supported by the good contribution of growth investments in Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, and some of these were commissioned in 2019, some in 2020. EBITDA came in at EUR 792 million, an increase of EUR 20 million post investments, and absorbing the currency headwinds and the Malaysia item. The portfolio delivered a return on average capital employed of 11.6% in 2020. Let's move on to cash flow. This year, we increased our cash flow from operations and pushed for higher dividends from our joint ventures. On top of that, we strictly managed working capital and benefited from derivative settlements reported in operating cash flow. Sustaining service and IT investments were EUR 315 million, in line with last year, and including investment for maintenance and inspections of out-of-service capacity in Rotterdam and Singapore. Our investment momentum continues and resulted in EUR 525 million growth investments for the year, in line with our ambition and including the noteworthy Dow transaction in Q4. Continuing with investment phasing. We aim to create value by allocating capital to attractive growth projects. In the last years, we've announced and delivered a significant number of projects focused on growing our portfolio towards industrial and gas terminals. We continue to invest in growth and aim to allocate the majority of our growth investments to industrial, gas, and new energy infrastructures. Our positive view on chemicals has not changed. New growth investments, however, in oil infrastructure are expected to be reduced and will mostly be targeted towards strengthening our existing leading hub positions. For 2021, growth investment could amount to a range of EUR 300 million-EUR 350 million, as I mentioned. Guidance for sustaining service and IT CapEx remains unchanged. For the period 2020- 2022, we may spend EUR 750 million-EUR 850 million on sustaining CapEx, and we expect to spend annually EUR 30 million-EUR 50 million in IT CapEx to complete and roll out our Vopak Digital Terminal Management system by the end of 2022 or early 2023. We're confident with the ranges that we've set earlier. We expect to remain within these limits for 2021 and 2022. Let's look at the balance sheet. Our total debt position at the end of December was EUR 1.9 billion. This excludes lease liabilities. Our total net debt to EBITDA ratio was 2.72, in the target range of 2.5-3, and compared to 2.75 at the start of the year. The senior net debt to EBITDA ratio was 2.52. With our portfolio performance and robust balance sheet, we are well-positioned to support the growth investments. Moving to shareholder distributions. Our dividend policy is to pay an annual stable to rising cash dividend in balance with the management view on the payout ratio. Earnings per share resulted in EUR 2.42, and we announced a 4% increase in our cash dividend to EUR 1.20 per ordinary share, reflecting our continued resilient performance in the turbulent year of 2020. Let me summarize once again the financial highlights for this year. We delivered 3% EBITDA increase post-divestments, supported by growth projects and good cost management, absorbing foreign exchange movements. Our financial framework and capital allocation are unchanged, and we deliver on the strategy execution. We have changed the segment capital allocation, as I explained earlier, across the different business segments. We will continue to allocate our capital to value accretive growth opportunities in balance with an efficient and robust capital structure and distributing cash to shareholders. Now looking ahead, and I'm almost wrapping up and then w e will move to Q&A. Let me close out with a few comments on what 2021 may bring. New contributions from growth projects that we commissioned in 2020 and will commission in 2021 to replace EBITDA from divested terminals could add between EUR 30 million-EUR 50 million in 2021. This is subject to market conditions and currency exchange movements. We continue our cost focus into 2020. Our outlook for 2021 is a cost level of EUR 615 million, subject to currency movements. This reflects additional cost for growth assets coming on stream. We reiterate our ambition to allocate between EUR 300 million and EUR 350 million to growth. In the coming years, the majority of our growth investments will be allocated to industrial gas and new energy infrastructure. With that, I want to hand back to Eelco. We move to Q&A. Eelco, back to you. Thank you very much, Gerard. Let me summarize our key messages before we go to Q&A. Is that we delivered good financial results in a volatile business environment. Most importantly, our strategy is working. We are well-positioned and have momentum in capturing opportunities to serve large-scale industrial clusters, and therefore, we continue to invest in 2021 with confidence. That concludes our presentation and prepared remarks. With that, I would like to hand it back to the operator and to open the call for those who have questions after this presentation. Thank you. If you do wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad now. If you wish to withdraw your question, you may do so by pressing zero two to cancel. Once again, if you have a question for speakers that's zero one on your telephone keypad now. Our first question comes from the line of David Kerstens of Jefferies International. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Hi. Good morning, gentlemen. Hope you're well. I've got three questions, please. First, on capacity out of service for maintenance. I understand that was a large headwind in 2020. I was wondering where in the bridge on page 17 that is included, is that in the growth contribution from new projects? Related to this is, I understand that you said in Singapore now you took back into service some of that capacity. Will this imply a material tailwind to EBITDA in FY 2021? The second question, I think you highlighted on the slide that the growth projects generate or are done at around seven times EBITDA. I estimate that implies a total EBITDA contribution from growth projects of at least EUR 200 million, over the period 2019- 2022. I think you said in the presentation around EUR 35 million-EUR 40 million was in 2020, and you expect EUR 30 million-EUR 50 million in 2021. If you assume that EUR 50 million was already done in FY 2019, that would imply a material pickup in 2022. Is that correct? Is it around EUR 60 million-EUR 80 million and caused by the fact that you had some delays to the commissioning of capacity in 2020? Finally, Maersk announced their first carbon neutral vessel this morning, using bio-methanol, and I think they've moved away from hydrogen and ammonia as a transport fuel. How does it affect your investment decisions in these areas? Thank you very much. Good morning, David. Good to hear you again. I think the first two questions, I think, is questions to the presentation of Gerard. I think that he can answer that best. If we talk about future fuels, particularly technology readiness and the choices, I think Gerard, or sorry, Frits is very well positioned to give an answer there. I think why don't we start with the last one, which is the choices for the different fuels in the maritime sector. Frits, could you enlighten David, please? Yeah, thanks, David, for the question and good morning to everybody also from my side. This is Frits Eulderink speaking. I think we see a lot of, I would say, movement in candidates for potential future shipping fuels, and certainly methanol, and particularly bio-methanol is one of them. I think it's actually a fuel that would suit us as Vopak very well. We do believe that if you look at the quantities required, that it is likely that there will also be alternatives developed. Whereas bio-methanol for us is something that we could very well supply through our infrastructure, we also believe we have to continue looking for fuels that may have their own set of advantages. For instance, a higher energy density. The energy density of methanol is not the best. Therefore, we do think that we want to remain open-minded. We certainly don't rule out that over time, things like ammonia or the liquid organic hydrogen carriers that we have invested in through Hydrogenious, start to play a role because they are particularly suitable to ships because they combine a relatively low danger level with a relatively high energy volumetric density. In other words, energy content per amount of volume. We could also see these in future play a role in ships. For now, I think we see this market developing in all sorts of, I would say, areas and time will tell which one will become the most dominant, but for sure, this is not a game that is clearly settled and over. Thank you, Frits. I turn to Gerard for the first two questions about the out of service capacity and how that's represented for 2021 in the numbers and the growth projects and contribution in EBITDA. Gerard, please. Thank you. Thank you, David. Good morning. The out of service is not in the contribution from growth. The movement in out of service is what you see in the movement in occupancy. We have the occupancy increased nicely in the course of 2020 over the quarters. Average consolidated occupancy 88% and proportional 90%. The exit rate for consolidated occupancy was 90%, so higher than the average of the quarters in 2020. That was mainly as a result of the movements in oil, less movement in chemicals. The chemicals variability came mostly from the variable income rather than occupancy. We did bring down out-of-service capacity, which was indeed, as you point out, very high when we started the year 2020 and managed to bring that down considerably over the year. The start of the year out of service was about 1.6 in Q1 in cubic meters. We have more or less halved that in Q4. We will continue to manage that. The most out of service actually is at the moment in Singapore and in Botlek. Botlek continues with an intense program to reposition its assets. That is partly sustaining CapEx, where you have to take pipes and tanks out of service, and it's partly a new capital for Botlek, which is adding a new capacity. The movement, as I said, is not in growth. It is in our regular results, and it has contributed to the 3% increase in EBITDA in aggregate. Hopefully that positions that. On the EBITDA multiple. When we build ourselves, we typically can indeed build at that type of range, as you indicate. What we have clarified is the contribution of EUR 35 million- EUR 40 million in 2020, and the expectation of EUR 30 million- EUR 50 million in 2021 from projects commissioned in 2020 and projects that will be commissioned in 2021. Of course, there's continued contribution and additional contributions over time from new investments in 2022. Of course, we also saw contributions from our investment over the past three years in 2019. That is the spread of the contributions, EUR 35 million- EUR 40 million in 2020, EUR 30 million- EUR 50 million in 2021. That is reflective of those type of multiples. What you also see is that the construction period, i.e., allocating your capital and actually commissioning for industrial terminals is longer than, let's say, traditional brownfield extensions or smaller projects. You need to build in a little bit more time for the industrial component to come through. The essence of what these multiples imply is correct. Hopefully we've given you some insight. We invested EUR 500 million in 2020. We expect to invest another EUR 300 million-EUR 350 million in 2021. Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. Can I ask one quick question? Do you roughly know what the contribution was in 2019 from new growth projects? I will look that up and we'll get back to you, David. I don't have that with me. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Luuk van Beek of Degroof Petercam. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. Well, first, a question about your cost guidance. You have quite some new projects coming online in 2021. Should you expect a significant pre- operating expenses or startup costs for that? Is it included in your guidance? My second question is on the impairment in Panama. Can you give a bit more background there and indicate if we should expect a negative impact on the contribution from the terminal going forward? Thank you, Luuk. Gerard, I think you can easily answer these questions. Floor is yours. Okay. A bit of perspective on cost. The cost that we guide to is EUR 615. We operated the company in 2019 at EUR 633. We've replaced some assets, added some new assets. All these numbers are inclusive of all the consolidated assets. All assets that are operational and they are running costs and they may also be costs that are expensed in commissioning or starting up. It's an all-inclusive number. So far, we've managed to continue to put healthy pressure on the cost levels to, as Eelco said earlier, defend our EBITDA. In terms of Panama, Panama is an asset where we have a setup where we own capacity of 375,000 cubic meters and we operate another, let's say 500,000 for Chevron, the party who's also present on the site. In the own setup, we have a total of nine tanks and the occupancy of those tanks has been influenced by the pace at which we were able to develop the market in Panama. This is a greenfield activity for fuel oil on the Atlantic side of Panama. For that operation, you also need to have your offshore bunkering permitting arrangements organized and that has been delayed. That has been delayed in discussions with the government. It's constructive discussions but obviously everybody wants to be very careful that this is handled properly and that has proven to be taken longer than we anticipated. Probably also not helped by governments being distracted with COVID-19 pandemics and you name it. The short of it is that where we are now commercially is not where we planned to be for Panama. We are, from that point of view, behind and therefore the business plan reflects that. Because the business plan reflects that, you need to impair the asset. It doesn't really change the fundamentals of the asset. The strategic location is a sound location, but it does take longer to commercialize it. We have partly impaired it. It is part of our fuel oil network worldwide. As you know, we've trimmed that significantly in 2020 where we intervened with our fuel oil exposure bringing it down from 5 million to 3.5 million cubes and fit for IMO 2020. A small element of that is Panama, and as I explained, Panama is behind its business plan as we had hoped it would be. Okay. Thank you. That's clear. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Thomas Adolff of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Good morning. I've got a few questions as well, please. Firstly, just on the oil contracts. You mentioned in the call that the contracts run into 2021. Perhaps if you don't mind being a little bit more specific, is it a good coverage throughout 2021 or presumably these are shorter term contracts which require renegotiation? Some color on that would be great. Secondly, going back to slide 17, you show a very nice bridge and you also show that the portfolio decisions have impacted your EBITDA by EUR 58 million. Could you perhaps say how much of the old assets you sold actually contributed to EBITDA in 2020? My final question is, in terms of the new energy businesses, what sort of an EBITDA margin are we seeing there? Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. I suggest that I'll say a few words about your oil contracts question globally and then I think the questions on particularly the margin of new energy, I think I would leave to Gerard and then also the bridge that you mentioned, I'll leave to Gerard. Let me start giving you some insights on the oil contracts and the comment that I made in my presentation. We highlighted that in 2019, sorry, apologies, in 2020, we got momentum in the oil markets. There were two reasons for that, is first of all, is that we delivered the IMO capacity that we converted for the low sulfur fuel oil, particularly in Rotterdam and in Singapore. Therefore, we could return capacity that was out of service in the early parts of 2020 and the last quarter of 2019. Second of all, is that we saw that the markets were supportive of storage in the early part of 2020 because of the COVID pandemic and because d emand substantially reduced, obviously the need for storage increased, and we saw quite a strong contango structure appear in the markets. We benefited from that. I think you've seen that in the results, and you've seen the occupancy in those locations to go to levels which we deem to be very healthy between the 90% and 95% occupancy on available capacity. The markets that you see now, I think, are substantially more balanced. With that, we've seen a response on the supply side by OPEC and non-OPEC companies collectively, to reduce the output of products. Similarly, we've seen also that the take-up of new demand or returning demand has been managed well. We've seen that the oil price has been relatively stable in the last quarter and also in the start of 2021. With that, we have seen an environment which is more stable, but we have still sort of continued our contract portfolio from 2020 into 2021. We feel if you look at our coverage for oil in the oil contracts in 2021 compared to 2020, we look at that positively or through advantageous in the sense that the contracts that we have today in our portfolio is a very solid basis to start from. I think this is the guidance we've given. We haven't given any indication on obviously, price levels or occupancy going forward. I think that's, as you know from us, we always report on the actual performance, so we will continue to do that. As I said, if you look at the effects of the contango and the strong oil markets, we qualitatively can say that we will benefit from that as well in the year 2021. With that, I'll hand it over to Gerard to answer the other two questions. Hi, Thomas. Hope you're doing well. Thanks for the question and thanks for your time. The EBITDA bridge shows the EUR 58 million for divested terminals. What's in there is the effect of nine months of 2019. Contribution that was in our numbers. Then we sold a big chunk, and we missed the fourth quarter. The total number for divestments that you need to calibrate on is EUR 70 million. That is the EUR 70 million that we gave as a sort of indicator of the EBITDA that we wanted to replace with new capacity coming on stream. As I said earlier, if we only isolate the 2020 and 2021 contribution from new projects, then that is respectively EUR 35 million- EUR 40 million and EUR 30 million- EUR 50 million. What you need to also bear in mind, of course, is that in between these numbers that I just quote, you have, and that goes a bit back to the earlier question on multiples as well, how do you tie it all together? This year we've also seen quite a big effect on foreign exchange. If you just step back and look at the EBITDA profile for the year. If we correct for the divestments, we start at an increase for this year of EUR 20 million. If you then say, okay, what is the effect of FX? If you were to ignore that, you have an increase of EUR 40 million. If you take Malaysia into account, you have another dimension again on these numbers. I do think it ties back to the multiple question that we had earlier. Obviously, business conditions in the year and foreign exchange also influence these bridges. Again, the question you asked was, how do I place the 58? It's nine months of 2019, and then one missing month bridges it to 2020. How much of that is in 2020? Almost nothing. The contribution of divested assets in 2020 is almost nothing. Thank you. Back to the operator. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Quirijn Mulder of ING. Please go ahead. Yeah. Good morning, everyone. This is Quirijn from ING. A couple of questions. First, about the chemicals. As we understood, of course, that second quarter was the worst. Can you give me some comparison between the first half 2020 and second half? Looking forward, what your view is on the throughput. Have you seen the bottom there? That's my first question. With regard to the accounting issue for the PT2SB, do I understand correctly that the numbers in 2019 and 2020, the contribution from the PT2SB were overstated? Can you maybe explain, let me say, the volatility in this result as well? What are we going to see forward for the numbers? Do we have to take into account lower contribution from this terminal? That were my two questions for this moment. Thank you. Thank you, Quirijn. I will ask Gerard to answer the accounting issue, PT2SB, and then I'll answer your chemicals throughput question. Gerard, could you enlighten Quirijn, please? Thank you, Quirijn, and I do appreciate that we've given a lot of information on PT2SB, but still it's also a difficult one to dissect. The effects in Malaysia are the combination of commissioning an asset in a period where also the sponsoring asset or the client was commissioning its own asset and had several incidents. The focus on the completion and commissioning of the assets has to be seen in the context of a delayed, prolonged commissioning effort, trying to bring not only the commissioning but also the final CapEx spend on the asset, the commercial decisions, the tax true-up as a result of that in terms of deferred taxes into a sort of completion area and commissioning area, rather than into work in progress. That has been protracted and delayed, therefore, we had to take final stock of that discussion in Q4. From my perspective, that is the way it's been recorded. To make it even a bit more complex, we also had a capital distribution in Q1 2020 of EUR 85 million in our favor, so cash coming to us. We will have another cash contribution to us of EUR 50 million in 2021, possibly 2022, maybe the end of 2021. In between, we have this EUR 20 million charge, which relates to, as I said before, the depreciation charges of fixed assets, commissioning, deferred tax liabilities, finalizing the completion accounts for the fixed assets, i.e., what did we build, what part of infrastructure for. That results in further commercial discussions on the tariffs that you have agreed, including when was the asset available, yes or no for servicing, when was the customer ready to receive the services, were there certain dispensation allowances in the contracts to have commercial discussions around that. All of that is in the mix. I'm deliberately giving you all those moving parts to underscore the point that this is a whole lot of things coming together on a major industrial complex, which is as good an asset as the Dow asset for us in the U.S. It's a highly valued industrial terminal position for Vopak. We will now start looking forward to a more stable performing assets, and I don't see the need for you to make any corrections in 2021 on account of this. Only thing that is still remaining is the capital structure of the venture, and we will update you on that as it happens. That has to do with the capital distribution that I mentioned. Perhaps a very long sentence or a few sentences to hopefully give you some more clarity on this item. The capital structure of the joint venture might have an impact on your participation in the total, the 26.5%. It might have an impact on the stake you have at the end? Yes, because we have a range for this asset that oscillates between the number that you quoted and a few percentage points around that. That has to do with the fact that there are different classes of shares in that venture. The different classes of shares relate to the different setup of the infrastructure, where there is general infrastructure and specific infrastructure. It's all in one commercial setup with the sponsor. That is the way that an industrial terminal may be organized. It is much more dependent on the relationship with your sponsor. In this particular case, it played out as it played out. I think the only comparable one that comes to my mind that had a similar complication, not complexity, but complication was, if you remember Haiteng in China. Haiteng, we also had an incident. We had a long period of settlement to stabilize and start up the venture. That's now behind us. Also that volatility is gone. The message I have to you is, this is a good asset that has shown volatility on the cash side and now in the results that you should look through and concentrate on the earnings going forward. Thank you. Okay, Quirijn. Maybe a comment from my side, that is that it is, for me, really hard to give you a definitive answer on chemical volume, particularly in the year 2021. Let me explain to you why that is. I think in last year, you're well aware of the differences that we've seen in volume of the durables and non-durables. We've seen a stark difference there. Occupancy held up in the year and what we've seen by the end of 2001 is that there was renewed confidence in the durable goods that came back. Generally, chemical producers reported solid year-end results, and they signaled continued momentum for them early 2021. Demand in electronics, automotive, and appliances-led recovery, supported for them their prices and their margins. They radiated a positive view on the markets ahead of them. It's really hard to see how that will affect, will be sustained, because I think we haven't seen the full effect of the pandemic and the recovery. There's still some uncertainty in whether the spurt in consumption in Q4 is a temporary one or whether we see that continued. That's why there's a bit of caution on my part. If I look at the portfolio of Vopak, the ITL business that we have, the industrial terminal business that we have, has performed and will perform well. I think plants are running. We've seen that therefore with the long-term structure, we've confidence in the continuation of that performance in 2021. I think if you look at the throughputs, that for me is indeed a question mark. I think, particularly at the, as I said, at the hub locations on how much throughput we can generate in those locations for me is still a question mark of all the aspects that I mentioned. I am afraid that I need to leave you hanging, there are just too many uncertainties in how 2021 will play out that I think we just need to wait and see on how that pans out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. May I please remind you that in the interest of time, we will now limit our participants to one question. Our next question comes from the line of André Mulder of Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yeah, good morning. Okay, one question then. In oils, you said that you would only strengthen your current hubs. Should we expect also some disposals? Okay, André, I'll take that answer. Thanks for the question. I think what we've done is we have made the strategy that we have pursued already for a while more explicit, André. That means that if you look at the capital allocations that we've made, and also the business development funnel that we've developed, it is directed more towards industrial chemicals and gas and hopefully new energy. Oil will remain important for us. I'm happy that you asked that question. What we see is that, if you look at our network, and we've said that already a few years ago, is that we will look at an oil network which is centered around the hubs. We are divesting the secondary locations around those hubs, and we've done so. You've seen us selling off Hamburg, Sweden, the U.K., and for instance, Spain. We also made the comment is that we will continue to invest in what we consider the large and most important import distribution locations for oil. That's where we have invested in Mexico, in Indonesia, in South Africa, and actually expanded that recently. I think that strategy still holds true today. I think what we've done is we've made the strategy execution that we had in the last few years just more explicit. What you can expect is that if we move on that portfolio, it will be indeed to strengthen the hubs to expand those major shorts. That will be part and parcel of our thinking. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Thijs Berkelder of ABN AMRO. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thijs Berkelder, ABN AMRO. ODDO BHF. Longer name than usual, and I won't keep it on one question because I think that's ridiculous. We spend a lot of time on you as a company, and we deserve more than just one question or maybe two questions per analyst. I'm really getting pissed off here. Sorry for that comment. Going back to slide 17, that's a great slide. Really a big help on getting the bridge on 2020. Still a question there. If I look at your product movement revenues and your storage and handling related services revenues, they've dropped by EUR 45 million- EUR 50 million year-on-year and not only the chemical throughput, EUR 20 million- EUR 25 million. Where's the other throughputs related to? Secondly, what now really is the starting point for your guidance for 2021? Is it EUR 792? Is it EUR 812? Or i s it, let's say, four times the EUR 208 million EBITDA you delivered in Q4? Four times Q4 is already, let's say, EUR 832, so is already delivering on your guidance compared to the EUR 792, meaning nothing extra can be expected. Please fill the guidance for 2021 with giving the same bridge as you give for 2020. On oil markets, I heard a small positive, probably because of a better occupancy and better contracting level right now. Chemical throughputs, well, the second half, if I look at the product movement seems to have been weaker even than H1. If I hear your response, you are afraid that it will stay at the low level of the second half. Is that correct? In 2021, what at this moment is already the forecast effect or ForEx effect you expect to affect the EBITDA in 2021? It's clear that the costs will rise. On the cost, I have a question, why the costs are going up, why you signed a CLA with substantial rises in salaries and on cost, why was the OpEx in Q4 so much higher than in previous quarters? Was that maybe related to bonus payments? If so, will that cost level continue into the first and second quarter, or will they fall back again? Is the cost guidance, finally, is that current ForEx, is that 2020 average ForEx level or is that whatever cost guidance expectation level? Those were for now my questions. Sorry. Thank you, Thijs. You don't have to apologize, Thijs. I think everyone has right to emotion. We absolutely listen to your guidance. You have several questions. I would like to give that to Gerard, to fill you in on the questions that you have. Okay. Let's deal with that. Morning, Thijs. Hope you're doing well. First, the currency. You're absolutely right. The currency is a difficult one to pin down. If you look at the sensitivity of the company, we've given guidance on that on the EBITDA sensitivity level. Particularly, we've always highlighted the U.S. dollar and the Singapore dollar. In 2020, we also had a quite remarkable move of the Brazilian real, we don't typically give guidance on that, it was a noticeable effect. On the U.S. dollar, the EBITDA sensitivity is approximately EUR 16 million for $0.10 movement. On the Singapore dollar, the move is about EUR 11 million at the EBITDA level for a SGD 0.10 movement. The average U.S. dollar in 2020 was $1.14. The current rate of the dollar, as you know, is $1.2020. Well, $1.22. I don't know and you don't know where the U.S. dollar will go in the course of 2021. We do know that starting the year, compared to last year. There is a delta between the average of last year and the current prevailing rate. For the Singapore dollar, the actual in 2020 was 157, and I believe the current rate is 160 or so, a little bit weaker. The Brazilian real and the Australian currency that took such a high movement, the Brazilian real and the South African rand, I think they've recovered quite a bit, but they also fell quite a bit. The South African rand is particularly relevant for the Lesedi and the Durban assets. There's a bit of gymnastics that I'm afraid you still have to do in terms of estimating and trying to neutralize that FX effect. As it is now, let's say roughly, we're starting with a minus of EUR 25 million? If the rates prevail, Well, I said what I said. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. In terms of the chemicals throughput number, I think you said, "Why are you showing 20-25, whereas you can identify only a lower number?" I couldn't quite as quickly as you did, find the lower number that you spotted somewhere. No, sorry. In your annual report, you gave a breakdown of revenues per product group, they are only already in the consolidated operations. You have a minus year-on-year of about EUR 46 million in product movements and storage and handling related services. Of course, on top are coming then all the moves in associates. The total effect, in my view, is much bigger than the EUR 20 million-EUR 25 million. Maybe it's only EUR 20 million-EUR 25 million in chemicals, then there have been a similar amount of negative product movements on the oil side. That's correct, Thijs. This is the throughput numbers in the chemicals business that we've shown here. I can only confirm that. Okay. Yeah. Going forward, are we expecting the low second half to continue? What you have seen in the chemicals business, but perhaps Frits or Eelco can say a little bit more about that, is I think the chemicals companies, they were cautiously getting more enthusiastic towards the end of the year in 2020. I think the start of the year, depending on which product group you are in chemicals, people seem to be more confident. For us, that would be good because obviously if their throughput levels and product movements increase, we benefit from that. I can only say that whether it is what 2021 or 2022 will bring and how quickly the GDPs in countries, because that is often what is driving this actually in aggregate, reestablish themselves, the better it is for us. 2020 has just not been a good year for throughputs. To see it go down, I think would be unlikely over time. To see it go up would be logical. I want to quickly check in with Eelco whether he wants to qualify this more. Otherwise, I go back to the remainder of your questions. Eelco, do you have anything else to say on that chemicals activity? No, I think I did in the previous question, Gerard. Thank you. Okay. Let me go on to cost. I think the cost performance is influenced also by the fact that what we see in many ports worldwide, we see pressure as a result from port fees and leases. That's not helping. We need to compensate that in our overall cost performance together with indeed pressure that we get from regular salary increases and salary rounds. Whatever we give away on that, we need to somehow make good in the rest of the cost base. In terms of a Q4 effect, that was not incentive related. We aggregate the multi-year incentive programs and calibrate that throughout the year to reduce volatility. We make also an estimate on the short-term incentives and calibrate that for the year itself. Normally, that would not be a big move unless we have a surprise in the fourth quarter. It's not incentive related, Thijs, it is related to either one-off items in the quarter, which are often insurance or claim or legal settlements. We had quite a few legal settlements in Q4, that were going through the numbers. Yeah. I think- Sorry, Gerard. In your report, you indeed show advisory fees of EUR 29 million versus EUR 20 million a year ago. That could be that it primarily has landed in the Q4 results. Yeah. That is partly, is that correct? That is also some other advisory work that we conducted to develop our new business development position. Yeah In many ways, that is good money, but it hurts in the P&L. It's deliberate money that we spent on new business development or on optimizing existing positions. Those advisory fees also were impacting Q4. Yeah. Maybe one add-on question on expenses. In personnel expenses, you capitalize a lot of personnel expenses, EUR 74 million. That's, let's say, 25% of what you report. You indicate that it's related to more or less assets in the construction. Over the years, it only has gone higher and higher. Of course, logical, you have a lot of assets in the construction. 25% of total, how can it run so high? Yeah. A valid point. We did spend EUR 500-plus million on new business development or growth CapEx, if you wish. That was also consistent with a peak in CapEx investment. From that point of view, it was logical. We also do have quite a flexible workforce on projects. If all is well, then that workforce contracts again with projects rolling off. If you're over the peak of that investment, then you capitalize labor or for that matter, capitalized interest, because you have the same effect there. Capitalized labor reduces, but also the total labor bill on account of flexible people that work on projects would come down again. It is correct. We are spending a lot of people, resources, in our investment program, and it is high on account of the EUR 500-plus million that we're spending. Yes, that is correct, Thijs. Is it also related to your IT expenditures and your IT personnel? Fair enough. We do have, if you look at our total numbers in the company, we do have quite an investment for IT. I think for IT, perhaps the stage at which we are and what we are doing, maybe it's good to hand over briefly to Frits. Frits, would you care to make a few comments on IT? Thanks, Gerard. I think, on IT indeed, we are capitalizing quite a few personnel costs, and that is related, I would say, to two main things. One is we are, as you know, developing our own terminal management software, what we call the MyService package under Moose. Obviously that has development cost, which is being capitalized through personnel. We are also in the middle of our cybersecurity upgrade program, which we call COINS, which also has a similar effect. You're absolutely right, Thijs, that as we have a philosophy of ultimately thinking that the total cost of ownership for quite a few packages is lower when we develop them ourselves, you see some of this cost being capitalized rather than end up just straight in the P&L like you have when you effectively buy a license for an existing package. Yeah. Your guidance is for EUR 30 million-EUR 50 million IT expenses. In other operating expenses, I see EUR 28 million. Those are probably normal external IT expenses. This should be then those EUR 30 million-EUR 50 million- May I? probably assets. Yeah. Thijs, this is Eelco. May I suggest that this is a question I think that we can accommodate outside the meeting and just get back to you with IR on going through these numbers. Yeah. Yes, please. Okay. I think we have room for one more question. Is that correct, Laurens? Let me just, Eelco, sorry to interrupt you. No problem. I do want to check with Thijs whether, because of his opening statement that he was very disappointment with the time that we actually dealt with all his questions, because he is investing and has invested a lot in the company analysis, so I do want to check back, Thijs, whether we have given you the time that you were hoping to get. Yes, you have. Of course, I have a lot more questions, but it's simply that you're spending one hour per buy-side investor, and I would say for the whole sell-side community, we need more Q&A time. That's simply it. Okay. That's appreciated, the feedback. We'll deal with that. Thanks for being so upfront on that. Yes. We listen to you. Thank you, Thijs. Eelco? Thank you, Thijs. Thank you. Our final question comes from the line of Juri Zanieri of Kempen. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Hi. Thanks, gentlemen. I hope you're all doing well. I will limit one question on my end, mainly on the new energy business. I was wondering what type of returns are you looking at? You have mentioned that you are assessing roughly more than 10 infrastructure projects. It would be good to have any idea on the returns that you are looking at, the competitive landscape, and I was also wondering if the guidance on EUR 300 million-EUR 350 million CapEx already include part of allocation to new energy. Maybe it would be good to know up to what percentage of this CapEx guidance could be allocated to this sector. Still on the CapEx, for 2021, I feel that you definitely have more rooms to invest on new growth projects, but in case you cannot find other interesting, attractive projects, would you consider to opt for a new share buyback? Thanks. Thank you, Juri. I think what we can do best is first listen to Frits to lay the land on what type of new energy investments we are considering, so you can get a bit of an idea on the relationship between how the markets will function. Then I'll probably hand it over to Gerard to give you a sense on the return and also on your question on the use of capital in the company. Floor is yours, Frits. Thanks, Eelco, and thanks, Juri, for the question. I think what we see in the new energy space, Juri, is obviously a very interesting and multifaceted landscape. If you ask me what are some of the developments that we expect to take place first from our perspective, then I would say it's our involvement with the liquid organic hydrogen carrier technology development. Some of the things that could become interesting on a shorter timescale there are some sort of a scale-up pilot demo to show to society that this technology is getting ready for larger deployment. If you say what's next, I think you're aware that leading ports, including Rotterdam, are looking at taking care of carbon dioxide capture and storage. We also expect that whereas a lot of the port carbon dioxide could be captured through pipelines, eventually other industrial areas will want to be connected to also deliver their carbon dioxide to the sinks in, for instance, the North Sea. We do see terminaling opportunities in carbon dioxide capture and storage as a next phase. Already quite a number of countries which are richly endowed with renewable energy are thinking of exporting that energy in some renewable form, be it either through ammonia or through liquid hydrogen, to what are expected to be short markets of the future, including Europe. We are in discussions there, and I think if you look at the readiness level of the various technologies, that it's likely that their ammonia will be before liquid hydrogen, simply because ammonia, as we already alluded to also in the presentation, is a substance that has been handled before on large scale, and so we have most of the technology. If it is industrial use, I would say we have all the technology. Eventually, you'd be looking at hydrogen, and you may have heard, if I take the example, well, there are two examples there. We're looking in Singapore with Keppel at running a data center on hydrogen. Whereas that's still some time away, it's certainly extremely interesting from a development perspective. Closer to home here in Rotterdam, there is the so-called H-Vision project of the port of which we are a partner, where we are looking to basically supply hydrogen to the existing industry. Those are some of the developments that are ongoing. Now, I think you've heard a little bit in what I said, I don't expect that they will really take off in a very significant way already in this year, 2021. There may be some first smaller investments, certainly, as soon as the opportunity is there, we would like to invest. I do expect that within the coming five years, those opportunities will really become substantial. That was it from my side, Eelco. Thank you. Gerard? Okay. Thank you, Juri. The buyback question or distribution to shareholders, or if I step back even further, the financial framework. The principles remain exactly the same, Juri. If we feel that there is a balance sheet which is not fit for purpose and overcapitalized, then we will not, obviously, lower the requirement on returns to pursue investments or take more risk. We will stay disciplined. We will stay exactly to our strategy, which is storing vital products with care, with a focus on digital and new energy and feedstocks. We've given you the allocation for industrial terminals, gas, and our enthusiasm for chemicals and less allocation to oil. We will stick to that, and if we see opportunity to create value, we will absolutely do that. If there's money left, then we have proven that dividends is high on our list, will always be high on our list, but we've also proven that we are prepared to use distribution tools like buybacks. We will seriously consider if and when it happens. On the returns, well, Frits already gave you the answer on new energy and feedstock. The way I look at it, maybe it's repetitive to what Frits said, is at the moment, this is coming at us with a force much more intense than two years ago or five years ago. Supply chains are complex. You need to get into that supply chain and find your sweet spot where you can create value. In the first instance, this will be a value discussion, being in ammonia, being in methanol, being in new energy, flow batteries, or what have you. In first instance, will be a value discussion and seen as such by, I also think, the investment community. Then you have to look through the revenues over time. In first instance, this will be a capital allocation discussion, and we will not compromise the portfolio return on our capital investment. Hopefully that gives you the sentiment, Juri, because I think that's what you need to hit on this topic. Back to Eelco. Thank you. Thank you very much, Gerard, Frits, and everyone in the call. I think with this, I would like to conclude the call that we had here today. First of all, apologies for taking a bit more time than we had originally planned for, but I think it was very much worth the effort. Second of all, I think we'll take good notice of the comments made by Thijs, that we plan for sufficient time in a Q&A session, that we can go through the questions in due course. Lastly, I think it's been probably taking a bit more time also to moderate it from our side because I think Frits, Gerard, and myself are sitting in different rooms, so we needed to coordinate it a little bit due to COVID-19. Therefore it's taken a little bit more, but I think it was a good call. We've been able to handle and give you a handle on most of the developments that are taking place in the industry. Thank you again for your attention, and I'm sure that we'll speak to each other again in the not-too-distant future. With that, I'll hand it back to Laurens, if there's anything left for you to be said. Thanks, Eelco. Thanks everybody for participating. I think that closes or that rounds off the call. See you for the next update, which will be the Q1 update, 21st of April. Bye-bye.