Good afternoon. This is Bob Brackett with Bernstein. Welcome to another session at the 37th Annual Strategic Decisions Conference. It is my pleasure for this fireside chat to introduce John Hess, the CEO of Hess Corporation, Greg Hill, the COO of Hess Corporation, and Jay R. Wilson, the VP of Investor Relations at Hess Corporation. This is your conversation. I encourage you to take control of it. The way you will do that is with the tool called Pigeonhole Live. On the right of your screen, there is a Q&A button. We already have a dozen or so questions, and what we'll do is as these questions come in, you can vote on them, they'll come to the top, and we'll try to structure the conversation where we hit all of these questions. Having said that, the roadmap will be a bit like a pyramid. We'll start at higher level strategic questions, macro questions, and then work our way down to corporate strategy, and then ultimately down to portfolio questions. With that, I'll just simply kick it off. Earlier today, Olivier Le Peuch intimated that a super cycle is more probable. John, do you agree? Are you willing to go up on the spot and talk about that? Well, we're certainly in, Bob, thanks for hosting us. Grateful for your interest and support of the company, and thanks for the opportunity to speak to investors today. This is a great conference. Congratulations on the 37 years. That's a pretty impressive history, and we're honored to be part of this. No, we are in a very different environment than a year ago. Yes, I agree with those that say we are in a commodity bull market, and if you would push me, I would say it's an inflationary super cycle. It's really where demand is outstripping supply, and any real inflationary environment is where demand is the engine of the inflation. In terms of oil, we see it in three pieces. One is demand, one is supply, and one is inventories. On the demand, we think it's V-shaped. We think we're doing probably in excess of 95 million barrels a day right now. A lot of the strength in demand that we're going to see between now and the end of the year is from the vaccines, from the openings that are going on, and people ultimately are flying more. I think the biggest deficit versus the 100 million a day that we had before COVID hit, the biggest drop was from jet fuel. It was down three to three and a half million barrels a day. People are flying again in the States. I think on Monday, two million people were flying. That compares to 350,000 a year ago and maybe something like 2.4, 2.5, if you were looking at two years ago. We're almost back at full throttle on air travel in the United States. You have more mobility of people driving, less public transportation, wanting to get out. This demand is a V-shaped recovery. While there are headwinds from India, U.S. and China growth is accelerating. At the end of the day, with the turbocharged incentives that are coming from the government with all of these, if you will, fiscal stimuli that are out there. The $1.9 trillion recently by Biden, he's looking for what remains to be seen if the number is a $1 trillion or $2 trillion for the jobs plan. You add to that the accommodative monetary policy. I think that's turbocharging the consumer, turbocharging GDP growth, and ultimately turbocharging oil demand. The U.S. and China are leading this, but now Europe's not far behind. While there are going to be some headwinds in certain countries that are unfortunately not as well vaccinated, they will eventually catch up. I'd say we're very bullish on oil demand growth from the 95 million barrels a day, maybe it gets to 98 at the end of the year. It gets to 102 maybe next year. We don't think you have peak demand, certainly for the next five years, but probably out to the end of the decade. That's the demand side. The supply side, it's U-shaped, a lot stickier. You and I have been talking about this. Shale, and partly because of investor discipline imposed on shale, so it doesn't have unbridled growth that was destructive in the past, partly because shale's gone from a growth business to a harvest business, financial discipline leading the way. Also just the logistical realities when you go from dead zero to 60 miles an hour, maybe a Tesla car can do that, but a shale producer can't. You have to get the well locations done. You have to bring your people back. You have to have the service industry that's been devastated come back. That's a lot stickier. Shale, I don't think is going to unravel this price recovery. I know you have models. Our own model says if the U.S. is producing currently 11 million barrels a day, we don't think we get back to 13 million a day, which is what the U.S. crude production and condensate production was pre-COVID. We don't think that happens for three or four years. Shale has taken a backseat as being the swing supplier. Really, the balance in the market and the stability of the markets is finally in OPEC's hands. They've been trying for the last few years to get it back. Saudi Arabia, I think, has done a masterful job leading OPEC+, giving the market what it needs, but not oversupplying it. That's where the 2 million barrels a day comes between now and the end of July. As a consequence, what you're really looking at is a market that is in deficit. It's been in deficit since June of last year, and this gets to the third point, which is inventories. Inventories a year ago, April, at the peak of the COVID oil glut, were 1 billion barrels, so 1.1 billion barrels of excess supply. That number was probably closer to 500 million-550 million at the end of December. We think we're almost in balance now. Now the market's going to be calling for more oil. The lack of investment, the lack of supply is there. That sets up a constructive market, not just for the next 6 months, but for the next 18 months. It's demand led, that's going to be an inflationary contributor to things like copper that again is undersupplied because of the demand shock creating supply shock. Now demand's back as we electrify the economy. Getting that copper out there is not so easy. A lot of the inputs that are coming in on the commodity side, the product side, which is about one-third of the GDP of the world, are definitely inflationary. Ultimately, I think it's going to create a cost push from the wage side. I do think we are in an inflationary cycle. Whether it's a super cycle or not remains to be seen, the direction is clear. There are inflationary pressures there that are demand led, and at the end of the day, that's a good thing for oil. It's a good thing for our company. Yes, it'll create some supply chain pressures from the service companies, and Greg Hill done a lot to mitigate that. At the end of the day, demand led markets are good for the economy and good for oil prices. Effectively, if inflation occurs, and it is occurring, it could be good, it could be bad, or it could be a pass-through for Hess as a stock. It sounds like it's net good because of its impact on oil, or am I putting words in your mouth? Yeah, no, I think it's good. Oil is a real asset that you want to own in your portfolio as an inflation hedge, because we do better in an inflationary environment. No, it's a net good. Yes, there'll be cost pressures, but we can mitigate those, but at the end of the day, the biggest risk in the oil business is price. You know that from the risk analysis you've done. We've known that for years of looking at our own enterprise risk. That's why we hedge the downside with puts, but at the same time, leave the upside uncovered. A higher oil price is obviously a sign of a good economy, and if you have a good economy, that's going to translate to higher oil prices. Well, yeah. A year ago at SDC, we were not talking about inflation worries. That was very far off the screen. In fact, it's a good transition. We've been through this pandemic. Things feel pretty positive right now. Can you talk about major decisions you all made during the pandemic that either were planned ahead of time or that the pandemic accelerated, or that were opportunistic? Yeah driven by the pandemic? Let me take them in reverse. The opportunistic was when oil was running out of storage, and oil price went, April 20th, a day of infamy, where oil went on the NYMEX where it closed at -$37 WTI. Nobody ever expected the price to go vertical that way, asymmetrically down. A lot of companies I don't think were as innovative as they could've been to mitigate shut-ins. What we were able to do, because we've always been a marketing led company, opportunistic, obviously with discipline, we chartered 3 VLCCs to basically use floating storage. Prices for storage had been, or chartering a VLCC, $30,000 a day. When we hit it was about $130,000 a day. It went as high as $200,000 a day if you could get a ship. That enabled us, and we hedged with the backwardation, the contango rather, in the market, and also using Brent as opposed to WTI where there was a bigger spread. We were basically, on a risk-free basis, able to add a lot of value to our oil production, but also keep our oil production moving. That ended up being a very successful strategy to preserve the cash of the company. What was planned, even though we didn't know we needed the insurance, was putting puts on. Every year, we hedge the downside. We keep the upside uncovered for our investors, and we've learned in hedging and risk mitigation, protecting that downside's important. We had those hedges. They paid out, on a gross basis, approximately $1 billion last year. It preserved the cash of the company. That was planned. What wasn't planned was for the price to go so negative. Again, because we did it in advance, it protected the company. Things that we did on an accelerated basis, we were the only term loan that any bank did. The banks were pulling back on credit. We were fortunate enough to get a loan underwritten by JPMorgan Chase. They knew we were going to make it. They knew we were financially disciplined, and they knew we had a great future. We also were developing a much lower cost base. With the portfolio we had with Guyana, $25-$35 breakeven Brent on the three developments that are already underway, one producing, two are yet to produce. Also the low-cost portfolio that we had in the Bakken as well as the Deepwater Gulf and Malaysia. We got $1 billion, three-year money, at very affordable rates. We were the only company that got that, by the way. That was something that I'd say we accelerated because we saw a cash deficiency. If oil was $35 or $40 for the long term, again, our first priority during this crisis was to preserve cash. We want to preserve our operating capability for the long term. We want to preserve the long-term value of our assets, cash is king in a bear market as we were in. I do think that what happened last year was the worst challenge the oil industry has faced. 1986 was a close second because oil went to $10. It lasted for a year, nobody saw the end in sight because Saudi just flooded the market. Eventually, reason prevailed among Saudi and other producers to get the market recalibrated. This was different. That was a supply shock of a glut. What we had last year was a demand shock and a supply shock. First time in the history of the oil industry where you had both. Where you didn't have the demand, you had oil overflowing the tanks. You had prices going vertical to -$37 the first time. This was a one-off that was the worst. I'd say we were well-positioned, both in terms of things we did opportunistically, innovatively, like the VLCCs, the things we had done before, keeping a strong cash position as well as the hedges to protect the downside. Other things we did, we were just very disciplined about saving cash. Again, it was preserving cash. Greg took our rig program from six to one rig. We could have taken it to zero, but that would have hurt the long term because the capability we have of lean manufacturing and innovative processes in the Bakken, you would have lost all that, and the friction cost of bringing that back would have been prohibitive. We went to one rig, not zero rigs from six. We also knocked about $250 million of OpEx out. We also cut our CapEx down as well. All these things together are things we accelerated to basically preserve cash, but also preserve the long term. It was a combination of issues, but great question. In fact, a lot of the slides and the strategy you laid out was about giving a level of uncertainty, protecting the path, the pace, and the outcome. We're somewhere different now. Do your priorities change? No, we are running the company, one, to grow the resource in a capital-disciplined manner, invest only in high-return, low-cost opportunities. That hasn't changed. Preserve the long-term value of the company, obviously led by the best investment in the industry in Guyana. It's Exxon's best investment. It's Sinopec's best investment. It's ours. That's what we're prioritizing. Keep the cash engines of the company strong in the Bakken, Deepwater Gulf, as well as Malaysia. We are at two rigs now, that's something different as prices went up. That basically allows us to keep our Bakken asset as a cash generator. Keeps production at a plateau of about 175,000 barrels a day. We're giving serious consideration with these higher prices because it is about returns. It is about maximizing the value of the Bakken. It is about generating more cash out of the Bakken. We're going to give serious consideration to going to a third rig going into next year. Ultimately, we'll be in a position, and the max we'd ever go is four rigs, and that wouldn't be next year. Go to 200,000 barrels a day, which optimizes our infrastructure, but also optimizes the potential of generating free cash flow of about $1 billion a year at current prices. I'd say the flex in the Bakken is one of the things in response to the higher oil price, but discipline is first, second, and third priority. Accelerating anything else, no. M&A, we're not looking at. We're a company that's focused on growing our resource, going down the cost curve to a $40 Brent breakeven, and sustainable growth in cash flow and free cash flow growth. That's not going to be different if it's $70 a barrel or $50 a barrel. We're staying the course of the long-term strategy we have because we think that's going to maximize value for our shareholders and get us in a position where we can actually compound free cash flow growth over the next 10 years. That's unique. Major oil companies can generate free cash but not grow. Most shale companies can grow, not generate free cash. That value proposition's up in the air now, so they're coming back on growth. At the end of the day, they're trying to generate more cash. On page 19 in our investor pack, you see the differentiated cash position, the compounding cash generation that we have, where if you use third-party estimates, including yours on revenue, on costs, on production, and whatever assumption you have on price. You can see that with those consensus averages, Hess generates 38% a year compound cash flow growth out to 2023. Our peers are 18%, and we're in the top 5% of the S&P in being a durable cash flow growth company. That strategy is the one we had going into the pandemic, going through the pandemic, obviously protecting cash to protect that, and we're just continuing executing it now. Nothing's changed there. The only thing is we're getting back into the business of the track that we were on in the Bakken now that the price signal is there. Again, the Bakken is the key cash generator. I'll return to the hedging strategy because we've got two client questions on that, and it is differentiated. A lot of peers will adopt a costless hedging strategy. Three-ways sometimes end up being quite costly. Even two ways, you feel the cost when oil spikes, and you don't capture the upside. The questions we have are. What is your hedging strategy? Would you contemplate locking in current prices? The other question is more specific. How much would it cost to buy puts against the forward curve for all your production out to 2025? Oh, God. Great questions, by the way. Costless collars, there's no such thing. I think the broker wins on that. The oil company doesn't really get full protection on the downside. Three ways, there are some companies that did it, and basically were writing a check under $40 WTI. The cost to them that did that actually was not having their production hedged. You don't get something for nothing. You got to pay for your house insurance. We're willing to pay a little bit more, in the range of, let's say, $3, $3.50, even closer to $4 if necessary to get that downside protected and the upsides uncapped. We're willing to pay that cost. Are you willing to pay house insurance every year even if you never use it? Of course, I hope we never use it. Last year was literally a lifeline for us, where other companies, in saving maybe $1 a barrel, didn't get real insurance. We want to get real insurance for our shareholders. No, we wouldn't sell this strip forward. It's backwardated. The market now, I just checked, is $68. I think it's $66 for the rest of the year for WTI and $62 for next year. Selling that forward, you're giving up potentially $6 a barrel, but also you're capping the upside. That upside's a hell of a lot better when it was $40. I get that. Between now and the end of the year, we will look at putting another put strategy on that gives us all the downside protection. Nothing cute with costless. In the short term, you're spending less money, but you're not getting the downside protection you owe your shareholders, in our opinion. It's a different philosophy. Three-way is the same issue. Costless and three-ways are a bird of a different feather, but the same category. It's not downside insurance that basically is unlimited. We also want to give unlimited upside. That's our hedging philosophy, and we will continue to do that next year. Basically, looking at our US production, we have natural protections in our PSC in Guyana, where basically, and you know this better than anybody, in 1998, for foreign governments to attract investment, they had to have some risk-sharing with the oil companies that were putting up $ billions. All the oil companies would lose on the downside and sometimes be capped on the upside. The PSC allows you to have a cost bank, and basically, you can use a certain amount of your revenue each year against that cost bank. Basically, that revenue, if the price goes down, the volume goes up, so that revenue's protected about what you get back each year. That helps give us a hedge as we go forward. Certainly in Guyana, certainly in Malaysia where we have a PSC as well. Having said that, if you look long term, the market continues to be backwardated, and I don't know what the price of a put would be, but you know better than anybody, options are a function of volatility, intrinsic value, and also time value. The longer you go out, the more it costs per barrel is. I think right now, just to hedge $60 WTI would be in the range of about $5 a barrel for next year. If you went out to 2025 and the market's more backwardated, I'd say it'd be closer to $10 a barrel. Really, that would be prohibitive. We have our oil hedged to 120,000 barrels a day at $55 put for WTI and 30,000 barrels a day at Brent at $60 put. We'll look at similar kinds of things for it next year. By the time of the end of the year, the time value will compress, and where that would cost $5 now, maybe it'll cost $3 or $4 or something in that range. At that price, we certainly would be buyers of the puts. If we shift to kind of the portfolio strategy, a lot of the pieces of the portfolio have their natural cadence. I mean, Guyana has its natural growth cadence. The Bakken has a cadence with maybe a development shift here and there. Arguably, the free cash flow from JDA or Thailand or Guyana is a free cash flow with maybe a little bit of exploration flexibility. If prices are where they are now or even frankly $10 below, what happens in 2025 when these free cash flow numbers are significant, and how do you think about the uses of that free cash flow? Yeah. No, great question. That compounding cash flow growth that I talked about of 38% between third-party estimates between now and 2023, much superior to any of our peers or the major oil companies. We have a unique value proposition, which is superior free cash flow growth that compounds. We're going to stay on that track and exercise that. We're not going to be distracted by M&A. We're going to be focused totally on exercising capital discipline and delivering on that strategy, which compounds cash flow growth. Basically, if you play it out, it goes back to our last investor day. Our cash flow will grow about 20% a year, certainly at current prices, and our top line grows 10% a year. Any business that can compound cash flow growth at twice the rate of what your top line is a business you want to own. We actually have visibility not just for the next five years, but really for the next 10 years. We're in great shape in that regard. As we get in that free cash flow inflection, some of it happens next year with the second ship in Guyana coming on, then more with the third ship in Guyana coming on in 2024, then probably Yellowtail, the fourth ship that is yet to be sanctioned. Hopefully, we can get that before the end of the year from the government. That will add another cash flow inflection point. As you're saying, there's a large free cash flow wedge growing in Hess and compounding over time. How are we going to use that money? Obviously, we're going to keep investing in the business, and you're looking at capital in the range of $2 billion to maybe $2.5 billion, $2.75 billion a year. Just as that cash flow grows, that free cash flow wedge grows. That's a unique value proposition that we have that no other oil company has. Our first priority is to pay down that $1 billion term loan that I talked about. And it's looking now that we'll be able to pay down in part or all before it expires in 2023. After that, the majority of the cash flow will go back to capital returns to our shareholders via cash, first by strengthening our base dividend. We want it to be more competitive than the S&P, by let's say at least 1%, and you're looking at 2.5% or 3% is ultimately where we want to go, where we're close to, let's say, 1.5% now. Once that is locked in, and we want to stress test that, but we have, in a lower price environment with the portfolio we have and low-cost supply, that's something that's certainly sustainable even in a low-price environment. After that, we'll look at variable returns, and the variable returns of the majority of that cash will be either opportunistic shale purchases or a variable dividend. We're very different than these shale companies that are saying 70% reinvestment. They're assembly lines. They're not growing their resource. They're really harvesting the resource. We're the only company that is actually growing the resource, going down the cost curve, and compounding the growth of free cash flow. That's the strategy we have. That's what it was pre-COVID. That's what it is now post-COVID. We're going to stick to our knitting there. The majority of that free cash, once the debt's paid down, is going to go back to our shareholders. We'll still be able to grow the resource of the company and production of the company. There's a pair of nearer-term questions. One is, and you've alluded to it, that do you play a role in consolidating the Bakken? The other is, would you think about adjusting the capital plan for 2021? Yeah. Two points. I'll have Greg address the capital plan for 2021 and 2022 and the role of the Bakken in the portfolio to get his perspective on it. Look, we always look at M&A divestments as well to optimize the portfolio. I think the answer to the question can just be, we don't see anything in the Bakken that improves our inventory of drillable locations that we already have a 15-year supply with a four rig count of very high return projects, in excess of, let's say, 50% returns IRR in the current price environment. We already have a 15-year inventory, so why add someone else's inventory that is most likely inferior that's not going to be drilled for seven years? No, we're really not looking at that. I think what's instructive is the southernmost part of the Bakken. We just sold, it was about 4,500 barrels a day of production of locations in Murphy Creek. That was acreage we weren't going to drill for five years. Also, it didn't have Hess-administered infrastructure. It wasn't strategic. We got $312 million on it. We're looking to maximize the value of the portfolio we have. In that case, we actually sold Bakken acreage, and yet we still have a 15-year inventory of the remaining acreage. No, we're not looking to something in the Bakken. If something fell out of a tree and it enhanced our returns and it enhanced our free cash flow trajectory, fine. We haven't seen anything like that. Greg, you might just talk about the picture for 2021 and the picture for 2022 and how you think about the Bakken. Sure. Yeah. Again, the Bakken, as John said, the primary role of the Bakken in the portfolio, Bob, is to be a cash generator because the growth element is obviously coming from Guyana. The rate at which we drill the Bakken is going to be a function of corporate cash flow needs and obviously oil price, right? Now, having said that, we don't want to let it decline away. There is an optimum kind of sweet spot, if you will, in the infrastructure, which is a little bit over 200,000 barrels a day because we invested for the 200,000 barrels, which you recall we hit in 2020 and then cut the rigs. We'd like to get back up to that level. Given the inventory that John talked about, 2,200 well locations at $60, given the strength of the current crude price, we're looking to potentially add a third rig in the Bakken going into the fourth quarter, call it second half. Rig in the Bakken, $150 million, $160 million, it's a quarter, divide that by four, you're looking at maybe potentially $40 million of extra capital this year. Haven't made the decision yet. We're giving it strong consideration. Again, that would be the fourth quarter. Why is that? You build all your locations in the summer, those locations wouldn't be ready until the fourth quarter. As we kind of look at 2022, let's assume that crude prices hold strong against your 2022, look at corporate cash flow needs, look at crude price, we'd make an informed decision. Do we go to a fourth rig? If we did, that wouldn't happen until the fourth quarter of 2022, again, for the same reason you build your locations in the summer. I want to reiterate again, the role of the Bakken is cash flow for the company, and any decisions we make are going to be driven first and foremost by the balance sheet of the company from a cash flow perspective. Stay tuned. Looking at a third rig towards the back end of this year. Yeah. Yeah Two rigs basically keeps our production flat at 175,000 barrels of oil equivalent range. Three rigs, you get some growth in there. It's not about growth, it's about growth and cash flow. It's not about production growth, it's about returns driving it. We'll look at that third rig going into next year. The maximum we'd ever do, and it would be a phased approach, is four rigs. Yeah which would get us back to that target of 200,000 barrels a day oil equivalent that could be sustained for many years ahead, and it also optimizes our midstream. We'd never look at a rig count higher than that. It's going to be a very phased, disciplined ramp-up according to price and cash flow. Yeah. Very good. Effectively, if you've got 200,000 a day of crude oil gathering, plus some working interest issues, then that's basically keeping full, and it would take something huge to make you go lay out that many year midstream capital to take that up higher. No. There's no plans to do that. Just maximize what we have. Otherwise, like you said, Bob, you're building for a short-term peak. If I just maximize the infrastructure we have, we can hold that 200,000 broadly, for almost a decade. At $60 WTI, you're generating $900 to $1 billion of free cash flow. Again, it looks like JDA much larger or Malaysia much larger, just this steady cash annuity for a very long period of time. What's the latest on DAPL Dakota Access Pipeline, and how does it impact your Bakken plans? Well, you saw that the judge ruled in favor of keeping DAPL operating. We move 55,000 barrels a day on it. You got to remember, that's not our only access to multiple markets. Right now, the market's arguing to sell more in the basin. We optimize that. We have a lot of flexibility to go to the highest value markets. When you benchmark us versus other shale producers, you see we get a pretty good net back, and it's because of the marketing access we have, but DAPL is part of that. We could move that 55,000 barrels a day by train if we needed to. Now that's not an issue. While the corp will still have to get the right permits, I think the judge wisely decided that the pipeline's been operating safely for four years, and after the Colonial experience, let's keep the oil moving in the pipe and moving it in an environmentally and secure manner, and an economically efficient manner. I think the judge made the right decision. You'd expect me to say that. The impact on Hess wouldn't have been that much. I'd say that storm cloud is behind us right now, and we move that oil down to the Gulf Coast and then sell it in the Gulf Coast or sell it as an export, wherever the highest value is. Obviously, we'll pivot now to Guyana, and we'll start shorter term and then think longer term. Quick question, status update on Yellowtail FID and directional breakeven cost? Yeah. Great. Yeah. Bob, the plan is to submit the field development plan to the government in summer, July, early August timeframe, such that our aim would be for the government to approve it, hopefully by the end of the year. Right. That would put us on track for that first oil in 2025. Look, we're in the throes of engineering the project right now, as we speak. I think a comfortable range is somewhere in the breakeven between Liza Phase 2 and Payara. It's in that $25-$32 a barrel range. I think that's a comfortable range. Let's get the engineering done. Let's get the project done. There is some cost pressure, as you know, on materials. Don't hold me to that, but I think that's a reasonable range. The reservoirs are very similar to Liza 2, very prolific. I think it's somewhere in that range. A bit of a longer-term question. If deeper targets prove prolific, what's the development strategy? Keep existing FPSOs full or add additional FPSOs? Great. Well, it's both. It's obviously going to depend upon the size of the prize. Let's talk for a minute just about the Lower Campanian, Upper Santonian reservoir system that we see on seismic. Bob Brackett, hope to show you the seismic someday on this because it's pretty eye-popping. What I mean by that is the channel system deposited by the same river just 30 million years earlier, is as extensive or more extensive than the Liza system. The Upper Campanian when I say Liza system. What do we know? We got four plus penetrations in it that show good quality hydrocarbons and good reservoir and sand. We also know from the Apache wells that it seems to be what we're hearing from industry scuttlebutt or what's been announced that the kind of Lower Campanian, Upper Santonian seems to be the prize over there. You put all that together, we could be sitting on a reservoir system that's the same size or larger than the Upper Campanian. Early days. We got a lot more drilling to do to figure it out. We need some rock, we need some cores, we can calibrate the seismic. Clearly, because that underlies the existing Upper Campanian system, you can see the discoveries there could be either an ullage filler or, depending on how big they are, they could be their own standalone developments with maybe even Upper Campanian being an ullage filler for them. I think the thing that people have to remember is, I always say, we're just drilling the big stuff right now in the Upper Campanian. If you look around these Upper Campanian hubs, there's a lot of smaller accumulations, 30 million barrels here or 40 million there, that are good tieback opportunities to that infrastructure. I think tiebacks are going to keep those hubs full for a long time, both in the Upper Campanian, if we're fortunate, if the Santonian comes in as well. To complement that, Bob, as ExxonMobil said in their investor day, we pretty much have the resource identified to underpin six FPSOs now in excess of a million barrels a day going out to 2026, let's say 2026, 2027. Really have line of sight to 10 FPSOs to develop the discovered resource of nine billion barrels approximately of oil equivalent. Having said that's really based upon the 18 discoveries in exploration and appraisal wells to date. We still have a lot of exploration potential ahead of us. Neil Chapman, I believe at that investor day said there's potential predominantly in the Stabroek Block for another nine billion barrels of oil equivalent, i.e., 2x what we have. Instead of nine billion, there's potentially another nine billion of exploration potential on this block. That will inform what the sixth ship is, the seventh ship is, the 10th ship is, or potentially more ships than that. There's still a lot of upside in exploration potential here. As Greg said, as you drill more wells and you get more definition on the well log that you tie to the seismic, we're actually seeing more opportunities to add resources. Yeah. One question I've had fairly often from investors is: Is there a way to pull that value forward, either operationally or financially? Yeah. Operationally, look, Exxon's been very open about this, and we certainly support that approach as a 30% working interest partner to them, which is go as fast as you can, but do it in a capital disciplined manner. That's really a phased approach. Design one, build many. About as fast as you can go, finding another 600 million barrels to underpin a ship, that's a tall order in the oil industry. Fortunately, in Guyana, we can do that, but we want to do it in an informed way so that we're really bringing the highest value opportunity forward. We had a property called Hammerhead, a prospect there, a lot of oil in the tank. As we found more things like Payara or Yellowtail, it actually jumped the queue. We are bringing value forward as we do more exploration appraisal work to make sure we're bringing the highest value opportunity forward. Basically, high quality oil, really high quality reservoirs. The oil here is a Brent price equivalent, much better than you could get for shale netting back at the wellhead, whether it's in West Texas or in the Bakken or the Eagle Ford. We are bringing value forward, just in our development queue and our exploration appraisal program. At the same time, and that's more the operational or the project management side, the reservoir optimization side. On the financial side, there's so much more to play for here. There's value there for our shareholders. This is the best investment in the oil industry. I wish we had more of it, so we're not looking to sell down. Related, how do you mitigate geopolitical risk in your portfolio? Yeah. Well, I think a couple of things to understand. Guyana is a pretty good place to do business, a lot better than a lot of the other petroleum producing provinces of the world. Originally a British colony, now independent. Strong contract sanctity, a very business-friendly environment. Constitutional parliamentary government. Peaceful change in power. The PPP, the Indian Guyanese party is in. The African Guyanese was before. The Indian Guyanese before that. They want a better future for the Guyanese. They're going to go from GDP per capita equivalent to a country like Jordan, which is obviously struggling economically, to in the next five years, having GDP per capita similar to or superior to Brazil or Mexico. It's a country that's got a very bright economic future. I think they want to accelerate the investment in oil to create a shared prosperity for every Guyanese citizen. We, and our partners certainly support that by bringing value forward on the development side. Also, work's being done with a third party to basically help the country, independent of Hess, independent of our co-venture partners, to get a country plan in place that will help industrialize their economy, improve the services and logistics of their economy, looking at human development, be it education or healthcare. Also looking at logistical development, potentially deepwater port, the country being basically a gateway for Brazil to the Caribbean. There are a lot of exciting things going on. Looking at the diaspora, where there are more Guyanese outside of Guyana who are very capable, have a lot of skills, a lot of talents that can be brought back to the country. Remember, it's a country of about 750,000 people. I just recently met with President Ali and Vice President Jagdeo and their ministers. Exxon was there as well, where we had a talk about how we can help them develop their country. What work can be done? How can we as business partners help accelerate that? Investing in the country, our company's core value is social responsibility. Help the country help themselves is what we're after. I'm very bullish on the leadership of a country that wants to accelerate oil development, but also accelerate their country development above and beyond that, building upon the oil treasure that they have. Working with a country for them to be successful, that's what we're trying to do. Transitioning in the interest of time, and in the interest of transitions, how do you at Hess think about the energy transition, and how do you plan for it? What's in play, and what's out of bounds for Hess, and how does that relate to ESG since we're in a public company? Good. We're obviously committed to sustainability. We've been doing a sustainability report, as you know, for 23 years. We're honored that we continue to be recognized as an industry leader, be it major oil company, be it shale company, independent, major, multinational. Just on the best 100 corporate citizens, we were the top energy company picked. We were on that list. Very few energy or oil companies are on that list. That's really a testament to our people, our board, the DNA of our company, putting sustainability first, both in terms of performance and in terms of disclosure. You got to be responsible for your carbon footprints, and you got to have a leadership role, and we do. Having said all that, let's talk about the energy transition, and you're very knowledgeable about this. Look to the IEA as sort of a resource to define what the challenge is. It's very clear that there's a dual challenge. First, how do you grow energy in the world 20% between now and 2040 as the world goes from 7 billion people to 9 billion people? People need to be lifted out of poverty. They need energy to industrialize their economies and improve GDP per capita. There's an energy challenge out there. At the same time, there is a CO2 or greenhouse gas intensity and emissions challenge as well. How do you get to net zero by 2050? I think this comes to two major challenges. How do you decarbonize liquid fuel, and how do you make the energy electric grid reliant and resilient after what we saw in Texas, by the way, based upon intermittent fuels? As Bill Gates has said, and I recommend the book to everybody, "How do you avoid a climate disaster?" He's very clear-eyed about the challenge ahead that we have to move forward. At the end of the day, this is going to be a hard nut to crack. You and I have talked about the Princeton wedges, which is another way of looking at it, 15 initiatives or wedges to get to the desired reductions in carbon emissions. At the end of the day, as Bill Gates points out, technologies are not in existence now for half the carbon emissions that we want to reduce to get to that net zero. I think a lot of this, Bob, is about climate literacy. It's about energy literacy. I'll add one more about economic literacy. I think Bill Gates' book is great to pointing out the challenge of the first two. On economic literacy, the green premium he talks about $100 a ton on the carbon that we emit every year. He says that green premium is $5.7 trillion. We think that number is well in excess of that because of the innovation and technologies that don't exist today. We got a steep mountain to climb. I think as Hess and as oil and gas industry, all we can do is try to educate the public, educate consumers, educate governments about what the challenge is. If you look at the IEA and their basically sustainable development scenario, no less their net zero scenario, if you look at meeting all the pledges of the Paris Agreement, oil and gas will still be 46% of the mix in 2040. That's an inconvenient conclusion for a lot of the climate proponents that are out there. I think the key thing is just to be balanced about how we approach the challenge. In terms of Hess, what are we doing about it? Excuse me, just a dry throat. Talking too long, unfortunately. My point there would be we're doing everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. Greg and his team have come up with targets to 2025 to reduce our greenhouse gas intensity 44%, our methane intensity by 50%. Those are targets better than the OGCI, and actually get us on a path that gets us to, just for our scope one and scope two emissions, better than what the trajectory would be to net zero. Having said that's scope one and two. What about scope three? We want to do our share on scope three. That's where we're investing. A lot of people are investing on industrial solutions, direct air capture, CO2 sequestration. Those are all good things. At the end of the day, we think Mother Nature. Remember, agriculture is about 25% of the emission challenge that we have. We think Mother Nature can do a great job in helping us to get to net zero as a world. We're supporting research at the Salk Institute. Who better than Mother Nature to capture the carbon and sequester it? Most people don't realize there's more carbon in the soil than there is in the atmosphere. If we can change those dynamics, that's going to be a game changer. We're supporting research there and looking at crops. How do you make the roots longer? How do you make them wider? How do you make them more absorptive? This is a multi-year project that hopefully will get to field trials. We're very optimistic about what that can do to help in Scope 3. At the end of the day, Bob, oil and gas are going to be around for the next 20 years. The key is having a low cost of supply. We want to do our share to get to net zero. We're going to do that by having a superior carbon footprint for Scope 1 and 2 versus most of our peers, but we're also going to do it by investing in this work of the Salk Institute that we think could potentially save gigatons of carbon from going in the air and leaving it in the soil. Real takeaway, energy transition is going to take a long time. It's very challenging. It's going to cost a lot of money, a lot more than $5.7 trillion a year that Bill Gates talks about as the green premium. It's going to need technologies that we don't have today. We have to triple our efforts to help society get to a cleaner world, but also provide the affordable energy that we need to keep the economy going. It's not either/or, it's and. In that context, and in our last minute, in the context of what you talked about, what's the value proposition for owning Hess shares? Yeah. Superior free cash flow growth that is not only visible for the next five years, it's really out to the next 10 years. It's low capital investment risk. It's very efficient in terms of growing the resource, going down the cost curve to deliver that sustainable free cash flow growth. I talked about the 38% versus our peers at 14% compounding cash flow growth to 2023. It's really sort of 20% a year cash flow growth at current prices versus 10% growth in production, where production is an output. It's superior free cash flow growth that compounds over time and grows over time. That's a value proposition that's not only unique in the oil industry, it's unique in the S&P. Superior free cash flow growth that actually is sustainable is the value proposition that we offer that other people don't have, whether it's in the oil and gas industry, and we're probably in the top 5% of that sustainable free cash flow growth, and we're in the top 5% of the S&P. People that look at us, you have a high multiple. I think they're being shortsighted because they're generating it on this year's EBITDA. If you look at our EBITDA growth, it's superior to anybody's else, and it's sustainable, not just for the next five years, for the next 10 years. There's still a lot of value to play for and a very attractive investment, we believe. Well, with that, we've hit our time limit. I want to thank you and the investors for joining. I certainly want to thank you, John, Greg, and Jay, for making yourselves available. We thank you, Bob, for your interest in the company and everybody that has listened to this discussion. Thanks a lot. Thank you.